Talk:Funds Dissemination Committee Advisory Group/Meeting 3

Hi,

As I'm uncertain how to give input for the agenda for this meeting, I would like to point to my suggestion on the comments page of the FDC. Maybe it is still in time for your advisory group to consider (I'm assuming you might be the most relevant body to consider this). Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put some of my thoughts about the FDC process at User:Mike Peel/FDC thoughts - hope they're useful to the FDCAG. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent Idea, I've start to write a few thoughts I had had during the past months but never expressed publicly on the FDC. I hope they'll be usefull to the advisory group :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I had some comments, expanding on conversation with smallbones.

1. more risk taking with smaller grants. you should be willing to fail with smaller amounts (say under $1000) and then reinforce success. there should be an expedited reporting template for smaller amounts. there seems to be a fear of failure.
2. need to consider seed funding, and organizational life cycle funding
3. there needs to be much more training of volunteers. ask yourself the question: if you don't like the conduct of a chapter or volunteer, what training was available in organizational behavior and financial management for that volunteer?
4. you cannot use straight percentages to manage, since the overhead of smaller groups will be higher proportionately than larger groups.
5. you need to manage a mixture of unpaid and paid people. there are some tasks that volunteers will not do, or will not do well. you might want to pay for those if you want them to be done.
6. now that we have an estate gift, [1] we will need some non profit financial statements that reflect restricted and unrestricted fund balances. we need more discussion of cash management, endowment investment management. a gold standard example would National Gallery of Art. Slowking4 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Paid staff in affiliates

Hi, folks! I've read about political conflicts in WM.DE on the Wikipedia Signpost. I have a question for you: why do affiliates need to hire staff? I think that affiliates should be volunteer organizations, so I don't understand why there are paid executives and employees in general. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia is a volunteer "organization", so I don't understand why there are paid executives and employees in general. --Nemo 17:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

do you agree or disagree with the following: "there are some tasks that volunteers will not do, or will not do well. you might want to pay for those if you want them to be done."

or we could all presume upon the permanent unpaid interns of the movement for the declining output. t-shirts are a poor currency. Slowking4 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)