Talk:Donation and grant acceptance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply to Chris) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Thanks, [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | Thanks, [[User:The Land|The Land]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
: I agree with most of your changes, but would point out a few things. The 'instruction creep' wasn't intended that way - it was intended to be a description of the process, not part of a formal policy. We're still in small-number-statistics for donations over £1k, so I would like the board to be at least told when those come in as standard for a while (but won't push that since it's short- vs long-term). I do think we need something in here about gifts in kind - was there a reason you removed it? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | : I agree with most of your changes, but would point out a few things. The 'instruction creep' wasn't intended that way - it was intended to be a description of the process, not part of a formal policy. We're still in small-number-statistics for donations over £1k, so I would like the board to be at least told when those come in as standard for a while (but won't push that since it's short- vs long-term). I do think we need something in here about gifts in kind - was there a reason you removed it? Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
::Why shouldn't WMUK accept donations of items that are useful to it and that the donor would have to pay to dispose of? It sounds like a win-win situation to me. Of course, it is important that the item is useful to the chapter, but as long as it is going to be used the cost of disposal is irrelevant. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:26, 11 June 2012
Just a note on the rationale for my edits:
- Specifying at what level gifts result in phone calls / letters / visitsis a bit like instruction creep - I think it's better that the staff/trustees/volunteers involved in this continue to work out processes that are fit for purpose, rather than having a board decision on the matter.
- I think we can delegate much of the judgement about what actually needs trustee attention to the Chief Executive. I don't think it would be helpful for us to say that every donation over £1,000 needs to be reviewed by the Board - better that if there is a case where there's a significant sum and any doubt, we rely on the Chief Exec's judgement about what to refer.
- We also need to take care that we don't have a policy that says "we only take donations from people we like". Trustees' duties are to further the charitable objects of Wikimedia UK, and we have to assess what impact accepting a donation would have on Wikimedia UK, not make a judgement about how similar a donor (particularly a company) is to us. I can certainly see scenarios where we would turn down a corporate donation, but I much prefer my form of words here.
Thanks, The Land (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with most of your changes, but would point out a few things. The 'instruction creep' wasn't intended that way - it was intended to be a description of the process, not part of a formal policy. We're still in small-number-statistics for donations over £1k, so I would like the board to be at least told when those come in as standard for a while (but won't push that since it's short- vs long-term). I do think we need something in here about gifts in kind - was there a reason you removed it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't WMUK accept donations of items that are useful to it and that the donor would have to pay to dispose of? It sounds like a win-win situation to me. Of course, it is important that the item is useful to the chapter, but as long as it is going to be used the cost of disposal is irrelevant. --Tango (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)