A few points about Kyrill's statement, and a proposal. Firstly the idea that the work done by the chapters "could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost." Cost isn't everything, and I suspect the chapters are more likely to be able to adapt things to their local culture. But the WMF is sited in a high wage area by global standards, so I suspect that many chapters can do better especially where they have volunteers who speak the language and live in the culture. So even if cheapest turns out to be best, the WMF might not be the cheapest option as often as you think.
Secondly "The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor." Again this is something where decentralisation gives you an advantage. I'm aware that in the US the tax benefit accrues to the donor, and I can understand Kyrill's comment might make sense in such a tax regime (though I suspect it is still wrong, as I'd be truly astonished if we tested it and found there was no uplift on donations that were tax deductible). But here in the UK much of the tax advantage accrues to the charity, so it isn't just extra credibility with the donor, it is an extra 28% top up from the taxman to the charity. I don't know how other countries do this, but that is the glory of a decentralised system - we can rely on the local chapters to have such local knowledge. Also this rather misses the point that some funds are only available to charities. Thirdly "The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't." Decentralisation does not mean that any one particular chapter gets to lead the movement, or even that the chapters collectively get to lead the movement. Those who advocate decentralisation of power are not actually arguing that any particular chapter should lead the movement, after all that would just be centralisation with a different centre. Power does not necessarily have to be centralised, in a decentralised movement the WMF would almost certainly still have far more budget and influence than any individual chapter. One possible way to decentralise whilst maintaining or even improving fiscal accountability would be to replace the Audit committee with a group audit committee. I'm familiar with this model here in the UK in our not for profit housing sector - basically multiple organisations in the same group are audited by the same committee. To keep the committee to a manageable size you wouldn't have every chapter on it every year, and you would probably continue to have independents as now. But I would hope you'd avoid having a majority from any one continent let alone one country. Also as a matter of good governance there should be a separation of powers - none of our treasurers should serve on it without at least a break of a year since serving as a treasurer. WereSpielChequers > > Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters "participating" in > the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying > fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- > is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of > administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as > easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real > advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated > fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; > and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what > extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average > donor. > > A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the > right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by > the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to > want is for the WMF to sign over the trademarks they need to do their own > fundraising, and then simply hand over a portion of the WMF's own revenue on > top of that. It's a convenient arrangement for the chapters involved, to be > sure, and apparently one that the WMF was not particularly unwilling to > follow; but there's nothing particularly "normal" or "fair" about it. > > >> Writing about ethical concerns while at same time being blind to anything >> that does not maximize donations is laughable. The obvious solution to the >> stated concern that is being raised is returning to the split screen >> fundraiser landing page which has been ruled out for not maximizing >> donations. The seemingly underlying and unstated concern about wanting to >> make sure that WMF leads and maintains control of the movement is actually >> undesirable and should not be pursued. > > > I don't see the concern as either unstated or undesirable. Why shouldn't > the WMF lead the movement? Or, to put it another way, why should the WMF > cede its leadership role to an amorphous collective of chapters, which -- > unlike the WMF -- has no clear leadership, may or may not enjoy a suitable > level of organizational maturity, and is subject to a hodgepodge of local > legal systems which may or may not be friendly to the Wikimedia mission? > The chapters -- and, certainly, any _particular_ chapter -- has no inherent > right to lead the movement. We may choose to _allow_ it to lead, of course > -- but it is up to the chapter to demonstrate that it is worthy of such a > role, not for everyone else to prove that it isn't. > > Kirill > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l