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, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. > I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you > say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational > transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which > direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal > view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not > that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are "more transparent and fiscally > responsible" than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and > must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at > multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a > range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of > charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a > single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements.
Yes, and my impression is that there is even less international agreement on this than there is on copyright. I agree that comparing rules to see which country has better rules will get us nowhere. A key feature considered by the Chapters Committee in recognizing chapters is: "The chapter must have a legal structure/corporation that is legally independant from the Wikimedia Foundation." This either means something or it doesn't. So while the WMF is clearly a U.S. nonprofit, so too are the chapters comparably so in their own countries. What may be important here is the nature of the fundraising agreement. We need to ask such questions as whether the WMF collects money from foreign territories on its own behalf or as an agent of the relevant national chapter. > > So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that > it's not a question of whose rules are "better," whose motives are > better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for > everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the > accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot > of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every > cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of > effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the > German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for > chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly > different. Perhaps the faulty premise that has led to this latest round of debates is that a single one-size-fits-all model could be developed. The easy way out can end up being the most difficult. My understanding is that the people who attended the Vienna meeting were disappointed that it was not called for the purpose of negotiation. > > This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. Yes, but the chapters (other than those in the US) are not. > > I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) > attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but no simpler.” (See > http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) > > The funding problem is a simple matter of relativity. Rayu _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
