On 1 September 2011 09:45, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal
>> issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to
>> the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter
>> into another fundraising
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
>> agreement/fundraising agreement.
>>
>> Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further
>> discussion.
>
> Ah,
On 31 August 2011 22:20, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> > I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
>> > agreement/fundraising agreement.
>> >
>> > Grant agreement have been consider
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> > I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
> > agreement/fundraising agreement.
> >
> > Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further
> discussion.
>
>
On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant
> agreement/fundraising agreement.
>
> Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain
te
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the
>> answer has been "no"!
>
> The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to
> disagree with you. It is
On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the
> answer has been "no"!
The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to
disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room
for improvement and
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Arne Klempert
wrote:
>
> We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as
> payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough
> flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011.
> But again, the board did
On 08/30/11 4:35 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days
> ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time.
>
> I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment.
>
This would help.
Ray
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker wrote:
> >>..
> > Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is
> > *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current"
> > agreements without links to the versio
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Arne Klempert wrote:
> ...
> We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as
> payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough
> flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011.
flexibility? Arne, do
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker wrote:
>>..
> Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is
> *not* publicly available, and there are many references to "current"
> agreements without links to the version that particular chapter signed or
> authorized, I'd say it
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Because although it is claimed differently (and although Thomas seems to
> hope differently) the interpretation by the staff is clearly that no chapter
> except WMDE should fundraise - no matter how hard they work to improve.
The board decided o
Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>> Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are
>> you just assuming they aren't available publicly?
>>
>> The standard template for the agreement is published here:
>>
>> http://wikimedia.org
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> >
> > It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> > Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
> of
> > the chapter agreement isn't widely accessi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> Hi Anne,
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> > Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
> of
> > the chapter agreemen
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of
> the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very
> demotivating
> for groups to come tog
Hi Anne,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker wrote:
> It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
> Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of
> the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very
> demotivating
> for groups to
On 30 August 2011 10:44, Lodewijk wrote:
> 2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge
>
> > On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> > >
> > > It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I
> > don't
> > > know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar
> > > requirements),
2011/8/30 Ray Saintonge
> On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> >
> > It may be a logical consequence for the WMF giving out these grants (I
> don't
> > know but wouldn't be surprised if i.e. Ford Foundation has similar
> > requirements), but it clearly is a nasty side effect of the choice of th
On 30 August 2011 10:11, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
> Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
I was hoping to make a more general analogy.
How about: Nupedia (ce
2011/8/30 Ilario Valdelli :
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
>>
>
> Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
As a "neutral" observer (i.e. not a member of any chapter) I can
honestly say it's b
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
>
Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
Are chapters branches of WMF?
The notable successes should be in no profit organizations.
Ilario
On 08/29/11 3:51 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program
> of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program
> grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is
> their problem.
>
> What would WMF do:
>
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I
> understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives
> a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism
> laws and trade bans (unless a
On 8/28/2011 10:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>> On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathanwrote:
Which activities are these?
>>> Copyright and internet law lobbying.
>> This is incorrect.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:03, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Sparrows [1], but Serbian Wikipedia article "sparrow" leads to
>> "passer" and I am bad in flora and fauna terminology.
>>
>> Eating sparrows is one of the commons issues during the first phase of
>>
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
>>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
>> Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear ho
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
>
> Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the
> central planning is economically succ
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow
> wrote:
> > On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
> >>> Which activities are these?
> >> Copyright and internet law lobbying.
> > T
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear how the
central planning is economically successful.
___
fou
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic wrote:
> That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
> Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
> chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
> will lead into even more delay in allocati
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:24, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
>> should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
>> complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> ..
>
> I don't see that as chapters' problem, but Foundation's. Chapters
> should present what do they want to do and if Foundation doesn't
> complain, then to do that. If WMF thinks that it is feasible to build
> infrastructure for handling h
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:55, Lodewijk wrote:
> John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I
> understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives
> a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism
> laws and trade ban
John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I
understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives
a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism
laws and trade bans (unless a court has ruled that... etc). This puts imho
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> I still see it as a matter of outlook when you say, "WMF is a U.S. nonprofit
> and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules", so is a German, French
> or a Swiss nonprofit, they must operate under the rules of their own
> country.
I belie
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
>>> Which activities are these?
>> Copyright and internet law lobbying.
> This is incorrect.
Michael,
Have you seen the draft Chapters Grant Agre
On 8/28/2011 9:00 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
>> Which activities are these?
> Copyright and internet law lobbying.
This is incorrect. The foundation can engage in lobbying under US
regulations if it wishes. Restrictions on lobbying by nonprofits ar
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Which activities are these?
Copyright and internet law lobbying.
--vvv
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:15 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> You're strawman is alive.
>
> If the chapters are funded by the WMF, non-US chapters need to abide by US
> law.
>
> If all of the fundraising money goes to the WMF, who then distributes
> it to chapters via grants, all chapters must com
Few last points before I duck out of this conversation for awhile...
There are international accounting standards (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Accounting_Standards_Board). It's
not necessary that all organizations follow them to the letter, obviously,
because not all nations (i
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike
>>
>> I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
>> chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
>> restrictions, whether those
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:38 AM, Nathan wrote:
> If the WMF plans for grants to be the interim method of funding for
> developing chapters (aside from that raised independently by the chapters
> themselves) then I expect that they will tweak the process to account for
> the specific issues involve
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
> > chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
> > restrictions, whether
In line replies to Nathan.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Several points in reply to Theo:
>
> 1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world.
> No
> one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires
> effective local partners, a
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 8/29/11 1:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
> >>> like the letter in
On 08/28/11 4:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
>> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
>> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
> Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except
> WMDE, is hereby recentr
On 08/28/11 4:38 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
>>> fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
>>> the fundraiser is not, i
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
> chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
> restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
> is a m
On 8/29/11 1:45 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
>>> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
>>
>>
>> Because that's its effect:
Hi Mike
I was merely pointing out from what I have seen from some of the other EU
chapters. I know as Non-profits they are obligated to comply with local
restrictions, whether those restriction are lax or stringent in comparison
is a matter of opinion but they do exist, is my point. I believe the
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
>
> > Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
> > like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
>
>
> Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except
> WM
On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Theo writes:
>> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
>> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
>> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
>> you,
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> > More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
> > fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapters in
> > the fundraiser is not, in anyway, an alternative to concentrati
On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except
WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard work, everyone!"
Several points in reply to Theo:
1) You don't need to argue the value of having chapters around the world. No
one debating that. It's accepted that effective global outreach requires
effective local partners, and that local chapters are the way to achieve the
best results. I think its generally we
On 28.08.2011 23:47, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Theo writes:
>
>> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
>> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
>> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
>> you
On 28 August 2011 21:56, Béria Lima wrote:
>>
>> *That depends on what you mean by "affected", really. I don't think it
>> will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it
>> intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed
>> before Wikimania.
It was interesting to hear from Switzerland, here in the UK things are very
different. One difference between the UK model and the US/Swiss model is
that the tax largely accrues to the charity not to the donor. Another
feature of UK charity giving is that it is heavily skewed towards legacies,
but
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Risker wrote:
> Bearing that in mind, one of the concerns that came to my mind even then was
> that many of them did not make it explicitly clear that XX percent of the
> donation was going to and independent local chapter. There was also a
> significant lack of fi
Theo writes:
> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
> you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restr
On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> Hi Risker
>>
>> I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
>> Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
>> community member from english wikipedia,
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions
> about
> > chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
> > time around. In the "real" world, charities determine w
>
> *That depends on what you mean by "affected", really. I don't think it
> will be just WMDE participating in the fundraiser. The WMF has said that it
> intends to abide by existing agreements, which several chapters had signed
> before Wikimania.
> *
AFAIK, yes. Only WMDE will run fundraising.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> > Hi Risker
> >
> > I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
> > Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
> > community member from
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need
>> to have a receipt.
>>
>> At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an
>> amount to one national cha
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>> This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need
>> to have a receipt.
>>
>> At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an
>> amount to one national cha
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hi Risker
>
> I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
> Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
> community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable
> to yo
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>
> This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need
> to have a receipt.
>
> At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an
> amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not
>
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker wrote:
> See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions about
> chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
> time around. In the "real" world, charities determine what their objectives
> are for the year
On 28 August 2011 18:07, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
>> change?
>
>
> All except WMDE.
That depends on what you mean by "affected", really. I don't think it
will be just WMDE participating in
On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan wrote:
> Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
> change?
All except WMDE.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm
Hi Risker
I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
community member from english wikipedia, do you feel it has been accountable
to you or spent it on worthwhile activities for the community? the r
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:46, Risker wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
>> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
>> >> WMF's first obligatio
On 28.08.2011 16:46, Risker wrote:
> On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER wrote:
>
>> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard:
>>
>> +1.
>> in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and
>> year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users,
>> we took 10% of the wor
On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER wrote:
> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
> > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge
> wrote:
> >
> >> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
> >> WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
> >> requi
Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
change? Of those that will be excluded this year (if any decisions on
that have been made or are anticipated), how many can expect to meet
the requirements for participation next year? Figuring this out may
have been part of the Boar
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
>> WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
>> requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated wit
On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.
I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any
actual disagreement.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@list
On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
>>> they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
>>> organization second. But the WMF shares in the
On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard:
>> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
>> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
>> locally.
> Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
> b
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
>> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
>> take on this, so I'll ke
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard :
> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
> locally.
Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
but then Ting clarified that no such decision had
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the
> WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
> requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
> particular jurisdictions wil
On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
>> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
>> take on this, so I'll keep it general
> 2011/8/11 Jimmy Wales
>
>> On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
>>> centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
>>> will make chapters ineffective.
>>
>> Chapters are not being centralized. I
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
> take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
> a
Hi Jimmy,
There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll keep it general - keeping in mind there are many other
aspects to be considered, such as transparancy. However, imho
Basics:
- WMF is a US charity. Funds collected by, or through its website (even
if legally collected by affiliated organizations) will be exposed to
US-style scrutiny and need to be able to withstand that for the reputation
of the movement as a whole.
- Wikimedia is a worldwide char
Hoi,
There is fundraising together and there is fundraising perse. What is at
issue is that chapters are and have always been expected to disclose their
activities, providing financial statements. They are expected to be
accountable and many chapters have largely not been accountable.
The conseque
Perhaps we might reflect on all the mistakes made by far older global
NPOs - the Catholic Church and all the younger proselytizing churches
are good examples.The mission has always been the dissemination of
knowledge (of a specific sort), so it has experiences that might be
helpful - what not t
To answer Michael Snow's concerns. Yes there is an efficiency problem
if you have a global audit committee covering organisations in
multiple legal jurisdictions. But that problem is the same whether you
have the existing WMF committee covering the chapters or you replace
that US-centric committee
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >rom: phoebe ayers
> >To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> >Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
> >
>
>rom: phoebe ayers
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:13 AM
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
>
>On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, p
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
> > Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
> > To my mind "decentralization is important" raises
On 8/11/2011 7:08 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Anyway, thanks for raising the importance of decentralization. The
> Board agrees: there's a reason it was first in our list of principles.
> To my mind "decentralization is important" raises a whole bunch of
> other important questions: is decentraliz
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 14:53, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 8/10/11 8:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but where has it been suggested that chapters
>> would not remain free to raise funds independently of the WMF? My
>> impression was that the change being discussed here
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni wrote:
> > On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard wrote:
> >> On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin
> wrote:
>
> >>> This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do
> with
> >>> chapters?
>
>From: Jimmy Wales
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:49 AM
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
>
>On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> As for the rest I encourage you to
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
