Talk:Funds Dissemination Committee/Templates

Letter of intent

The main purpose of the letter of intent is so that the total funds the FDC will be allocating can be estimated, therefore the key piece of information it needs to contain is an estimate of how much the entity intends to request. A very simple summary of what the money is intended for (just a few one-line bullet points) would also be useful, to help work out how likely it is that the request will be approved. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This hasn't been fixed yet. Does anyone disagree that the letter needs to include this information? --Tango (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah -- this was mentioned briefly last weekend at the FDC Advisory Group meeting, and Pavel Richter from the German chapter said it would be difficult for him to provide a number so far in advance of his actual planning. We also realized that likely if we *did* require a number for the purposes of helping the Board to set the FDC allocation, there would be a strong incentive for participants to name a high number, in order to shift the overall allocation upwards, thereby reducing competition for funds. Nonetheless, I do think that if there's no number required, there's not a lot of use to the letter. So yeah, Bridgespan, let's talk this through at our meeting tomorrow. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't need to be a very precise number, especially for the smaller grants (WMDE obviously is a larger one, so if a large change in their request from the initial ballpark could be slightly more of a problem). One of the reasons I suggested asking for a very brief outline of what the money would be for was to avoid grossly overstated numbers. Another thing that could help there is to take advantage of anchoring - give EEs a multiple choice (90%-100% of previous grant, 100%-110% and 110%-120%) and then ask for a more detailed explanation if you are intending to request something outside the 90%-120% range. By doing that, EEs are more likely to request something in that range. If you're expecting large growth, then you should know about it fairly far in advance - an entity like WMDE has a detailed long-term plan that would indicate whether they expect to grow faster than, say, 20%. If an entity does say they intend to request a significantly larger amount that last year then some initial scrutiny can be given at that point so as to allow an appropriate fundraising target to be set.--Tango (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Link, don't attach

Everywhere that current says "attach" should say "link". These are wiki pages, not physical documents, and should just link to wherever the information is held, rather than duplicating it. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tango-- I've made that change. Meerachary TBG (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

US law

I don't think it is reasonable or sensible to ask entities to confirm that they are in compliance with US law. They aren't going to know what US law is. Interpreting US law has to be the WMF's job, since it is the one with US lawyers. The WMF's legal team should provide some specific questions and then determine compliance based on the answers. --Tango (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutly agree with this ... as a US citizen living in Australia (and retired US 'warmonger') there is nothing that gets up the nose faster than being told you have to comply with a US (law, regulation, culture, policy) outside the US. YMMV, Ariconte (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Agreed that this needs to be joint responsibility of the applying entity and the FDC staff members that are checking eligibility. The responsibility of the entity is to provide the right information (names of staff / board members) and to attest that given their knowledge, they are in compliance with both their country's laws and US policy. The FDC will have to do some work in checking to ensure that, given the composition and structure of the applying entity, the entity is in compliance with US laws. The eligibility checklist, therefore, is submitted by the applying entity but actually completed by the staff to verify eligibility. Does that help to clarify? Meerachary TBG (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is best to just assume that the EE's knowledge of US law is zero and not ask them to attest anything regarding it. I'm no longer a trustee of a chapter, but if I were I wouldn't be comfortable with my chapter making any statements regarding US law unless we had consulted a US lawyer, which we couldn't reasonable do. I doubt I'm alone in that. --Tango (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As of now this 'US law' language is still in the templates..... what will be done about it??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll discuss it tomorrow with Bridgespan. We have some ideas -- we've talked about providing some up-front information to fund-seekers about the areas of US law that would be relevant for this purpose, plus we can offer support in helping determine their compliance, plus we might be able to narrow the language. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)