Staff capacity is /an/ issue. With the benefits of collaboration on wiki in drafting applications, bid writing needn't be staff led but staff supported (you guys write the pitch, I support it with numbers/details where possible).
The challenge is that good funding bids do require quite a lot of worth to write, deliver, and evaluate to report back to funders, and will need approval by the board because they commit the charity to delivering outcomes not envisioned by current staffing levels or activity programme. If capacity isn't forthcoming from the community to deliver this then we have a problem - but it so not think it is an insoluble one. What about putting together a group of volunteers who are 1) Good at writing copy 2) Interested in generating fundable-project ideas 3) Interested in identifying funding opportunities 4) Interested in looking at how we make ourselves 'nimble' etc (probably collating the type of information needed to support bids (impact stats) and developing supporting processes to get approval for applications). I've discussed some of this with Charles and Fabian in person before but I'd be happy to look at maybe putting together a working group and having a Skype meeting to throw together some ideas and start writing some of this up on wiki? *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0752 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 23 May 2013 13:39, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com>wrote: > On 23 May 2013 11:19, <fab...@unpopular.org.uk> wrote: > > > I would suggest that if people are serious about going for a substantial > > slice of funding, then they work up the idea and then see if the > concensus > > of the community is ready to back them. At that stage, it will then be a > > matter of finding funders interested in the project. > > I think Fabian's comment has merit. But there is surely more going on here. > > Taking the Wikimania bid as a relevant example: yes, a motivated > smallish group is a good place to start. To avoid chicken-and-egg > issues, I don't think people beginning with a blank sheet of paper, in > a complete vacuum of prospects, is likely to be the most fruitful in > terms of outcomes. > > Any application by the charity is going to have to be signed off by > the Board. Some sort of "incubator" for ideas would seem to be > required, that had input from the Board, probably only via vague > steers though. > > Jon used the word "nimble", which sums up fairly well what Google can > be presumed to have sought in giving a timescale of just a few weeks. > That sort of timescale is certainly not compatible with building a > consensus from scratch. > > Finally, WMUK does have a fundraiser. Katherine Bavage (I know) was > dealing with key Gift Aid matters when the bid came up, which is a > classic "bird in hand versus two in bush" situation. External grant > funding would end up on her desk, in any practical scenario with forms > to fill. Said nimbleness and agility would probably be based on > position papers, and the office staff having been given time to > anticipate the issues. > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
