Resource gathering and allocation 
WMUK 1. decentralization, empowerment, teamwork: core to WM 2. in building a movement, aim to maximize independence and responsibility at the lowest possible level 3. decentralized fundraising will have increased advantages over time. a strong accountability framework will offset risks. 4. groups need to budget and plan for more than one year. 5. we need a protocol for any group to demonstrate its capability to fundraise and plan decentrally. 6. this should include prioritizing the wellbeing of the whole movement over their own. TD 1. let any interested chapter meeting the Haifa criteria to fundraise via a WM site banner. 1a. this will not be much less effective than central banner use, and will be more effective in places. 1b. delineate necessary auditing standards: WMF staff working with chapters and publicly. 1c. have a local external auditor evaluate each such chapter, and affirm that it meets the finished standards. 2. set up a funds allocation committee to review annual plans and budgets that aim to use funds through site banners. this includes WMF plans. 2a. this committee will make recommendations to the Board, which will have final approval 2b. avoid prejudging what 'core' spending should look like, the FAC will determine each year what must be supported. aside on data: Fusco/KPMG reports: had limited context, few cites or explanation for assessments of risk or comparative value. no assessment of diffs in fr capacity. Spendwerk report: did not explain how it chose which orgs it observed. no assessments of comparative risk. clear metric for fr capacity [but no assessment of comparative change].
Global coordination 
Peer review model 
Hard: A central assessment group (perhaps large, to meet the needs of reviewing hundreds of projects and plans) plays a major role in comparing/annotating many plans.
Medium+: A central review group, as above, plays a major role in reviewing the assessment done publicly by everyone.
Medium: An unrestricted review group plays a major role in updating review standards, maintaining active participant levels, and consolidating reviews. rolling public assessments are moved down an orderly tiered process on a schedule that supports annual planning and prioritization.
Easy+: Standards for self-assessment and review are published, and larger groups or complex projects are asked to get outside auditors/reviewers to carry out those reviews before submission to one of the above models.
RC model 
ICRC and IFRC split conflict and disaster relief. The former is highly centralized, covers a government consortium (Geneva Convention signatories, who attend the quadrennial Conferences). The latter covers rapid outreach to the national societies, for instance launching the Sudan Red Crescent Society days after its independence and maintaining active discussions with nations such as Bhutan which have not yet formed a Society.
National societies support subnational chapters and each its own process there. Chapters support local clubs, often tied to schools or other institutions. A separate network of Youth volunteers is attached to each level of society/chapter/club and has its own gatherings/recognition/scholarships.