Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Capacity Building/Recommendations/10
Reasoning for independence and implementation
- Q 2-2 The response to this question is currently "Theory of Change: ...". How does theory of change help here? What problems this proposal is aiming to solve that "change" can help us address them?
a theory of change was just one of the formats suggested to respond to this question in the form, so that's what we did. The problem, however, is that capacity building has never been adequately thought through, resourced and sustained to date. And it has been the activity led by WMF, a US-based nonprofit organization, rather than a program owned and determined by the movement and its stakeholders.
- One of the risks of separating capacity building in its own unit independent of WMF can be the effort not receiving enough funding. How does the proposal attempt to mitigate this risk? (I understand that the status quo may also not be ideal in terms of the funding available to capacity building but given that this proposal aims to improve the status quo, I wonder how we avoid getting to a similar or worse state in terms of funding).
Please see recommendation 6 also. The proposal is to assure multi-year movement funds from the start as recommendations are implemented. If the 'unit' is an independent organization, it can be sustained by operational funds from the movement, and also raise additional funding for special projects and initiatives from third parties.
- Q 13 The answer to this question is incomplete. "A significant limitation is that". Please complete it.