Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Revenue Streams/Recommendations/9
- I agree. Unless there is something cleverly hidden in here it looks like a restatement of existing principles. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This recommendation needs a better wording: at least an introduction like "The following core principles on revenue streams should be shared by all movement actors: [bullet list follows]", have full sentences, and clarify things like "Principles used by WMF (not all applicable)" (I don't know what it means). - Laurentius (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Independence and freedom from influence
Details, context, argument, risks ...
No offense meant, but all the recommendations provided in the "Revenue Streams" area are surprisingly short, lacking all the rationale developped in the other groups. Over 2 years to get to that... seems a bit insufficient. Are the recommendations published still draft mode due to time constraints, or are they considered final ? Anthere (talk)
- I'm also disappointed by the outcome. I think that the Advocacy WG did a good thing and could be an example for this WG. They are not saying that we should advocate for Cheese but there recommendations is based on the process that the movement needs to do advocacy efficiently and trustly. Revenue Streams WG can't say is the solution to collect more money but you should ask for an annual meeting, for a hub of fundraisers, for a fundraising policy... Pyb (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
From Catalan Salon
- The charter should have a part dedicated to partnerships and funders (arm vendors? non democratic countries? what about potential donations by the Vatican, theocracy?).
- What will be the impact of decentralization on Revenue streams: subsidiarity of access to fundraising banners and data of donors; who is in charge (regional hubs, thematic hubs, every affiliate?).