So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly going from non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
# WOW, that's a lot to be spending on travel! I do hope I am not the only one who thinks that spending $264,361 (as compared with $140,605 in the previous year) is excessive. Firstly, I am concerned by the almost doubling in travel expenditure: I don't see any particular reason for that. Yes, I am sure Jimbo and others did an awful lot of traveling to promote Wikia and its search engine - but that obviously wouldn't be on the Foundation's dime. Yes, no doubt expenses increased with the decline of the dollar, increase in jetfuel costs and so on - but I can't see that. I have to question what good all this traveling does the community. It's eating up an impressive amount of resources (a substantial fraction of what we spend on important stuff like keeping the servers running), and strikes me as 'fat'. If people really want WMF people to give a lecture or something, what's wrong with having them pay the fare? If WMF people need to meet, what's wrong with videoconferencing? Why should donations from strapped college students and so on be going to this. :#It may just be my overreaction, but the next time I hear the WMF is hurting for funds, I am probably not going to donate; it clearly has money to spare.
# Heh, talk about understatement:
"A substantial number of volunteers make significant contributions of their time in the furtherance of the Organization's projects. The value of this contributed time is not reflected in the accompanying financial statements, since it is not susceptible to objective measurement. Certain contributed services requiring specialized skills are recorded as support and expenses at fair value when determinable, or otherwise at values indicated by the donor."
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does this really mean what it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
----
Yeah, so those were my thoughts on the audit. Anyone else?
-- gwern primers shell mania LHR anarchy JANET ssa RFI Internet Z-200
WOW, that's a lot to be spending on travel! I do hope I am not the only one
who thinks that >spending $264,361 (as compared with $140,605 in the previous year) is excessive.
In my book, that's not excessive. Near-constant world travel is never cheap, and travel is an *extremely* important part of the advocacy work that the WMF does. I personally am very glad they travel so much. It's my dollar well spent, and its what spreads wikipedia internationally.
On Feb 10, 2008 5:17 PM, gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at < http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf%3E). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly going from non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
# WOW, that's a lot to be spending on travel! I do hope I am not the only one who thinks that spending $264,361 (as compared with $140,605 in the previous year) is excessive. Firstly, I am concerned by the almost doubling in travel expenditure: I don't see any particular reason for that. Yes, I am sure Jimbo and others did an awful lot of traveling to promote Wikia and its search engine - but that obviously wouldn't be on the Foundation's dime. Yes, no doubt expenses increased with the decline of the dollar, increase in jetfuel costs and so on - but I can't see that. I have to question what good all this traveling does the community. It's eating up an impressive amount of resources (a substantial fraction of what we spend on important stuff like keeping the servers running), and strikes me as 'fat'. If people really want WMF people to give a lecture or something, what's wrong with having them pay the fare? If WMF people need to meet, what's wrong with videoconferencing? Why should donations from strapped college students and so on be going to this. :#It may just be my overreaction, but the next time I hear the WMF is hurting for funds, I am probably not going to donate; it clearly has money to spare.
# Heh, talk about understatement:
"A substantial number of volunteers make significant contributions of their time in the furtherance of the Organization's projects. The value of this contributed time is not reflected in the accompanying financial statements, since it is not susceptible to objective measurement. Certain contributed services requiring specialized skills are recorded as support and expenses at fair value when determinable, or otherwise at values indicated by the donor."
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does this really mean what it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
Yeah, so those were my thoughts on the audit. Anyone else?
-- gwern primers shell mania LHR anarchy JANET ssa RFI Internet Z-200
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 10, 2008 8:17 PM, gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
There was some discussion on WikBack, mostly speculation about the travel expenses.
I don't think what was released was detailed enough or recent enough to say much about. One noteworthy figure to me was that the Foundation had just over $1 million in cash, but that figure is long obsolete, there's been lots of spending and lots of fundraising in the mean time.
The fact that the audit is completed and unqualified is good.
I'm a little concerned also. I always liked that most of the money went to servers and bandwidth. I don't see any reason to think that the foundation should be the ones spreading books to africa etc. I'd rather they just focus on keeping the website up, and the information free; but organizations, without strict bounds will tend to grow.
Unfortunately it's probably too late. If you stop donating now they will think of other ways to make money, there are certainly many options available.
Anthony wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 8:17 PM, gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
I don't think what was released was detailed enough or recent enough to say much about. One noteworthy figure to me was that the Foundation had just over $1 million in cash, but that figure is long obsolete, there's been lots of spending and lots of fundraising in the mean time.
The fact that the audit is completed and unqualified is good
I'm just happy to see it happen. The next trick is to get them into the habit of publishing interim quarterly statements. Audits are not required for these.
Ec
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly going from non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
Are you saying the tech team should have spent a bit less time on performance optimisation? Because hardware spending is cool but staff spending isn't?
[...]
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does this really mean what it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
No, the current lawsuits don't matter because potential damages are small. Therefore the present cash reserves are enough. That's how I read it anyway.
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
There are no shared staff anymore, and no shared costs. The audit tells you about the recent history of Wikimedia, not the present.
Historically, Jimmy Wales, Bomis and Wikia have supported Wikipedia. Initially, Wikipedia was just a UseMod instance running on one of Bomis's web servers. Wikipedians should be eternally grateful for the support Jimmy and his companies have provided for Wikipedia.
As time went by, Wikimedia developed the means to become fully independent from these entities. Bomis wound down its operations and changed ownership. Wikia moved from Florida to California, taking its staff, and eventually its servers, with it. The Board (which was historically dominated by Jimmy) began to leave the day-to-day running of the organisation to paid management staff.
Public perception has lagged behind these changes, because Jimmy is a press magnet and his name in press reports is invariably prefixed by "Wikipedia founder", whether they are about Wikipedia or Wikia.
It seems rather contradictory to me that you complain about an increase in staffing costs, and then in the next breath, about the fact that historically, costs were kept down by donations from Jimmy, Bomis and Wikia.
-- Tim Starling
On 2008.02.11 19:27:28 +1100, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org scribbled 4.1K characters:
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly going from non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
Are you saying the tech team should have spent a bit less time on performance optimisation? Because hardware spending is cool but staff spending isn't?
No, you misunderstand me. The most important thing the foundation does is support the community's work; to do that, it handles things like the legalities, and more importantly, tech support. From my perspective, not one dollar should be spent on giving lectures and advocacy and so on while there is yet a technical need.
I don't think the tech team is funded as well as it could be. I often hear complaints about the tool server, for example, and there is the occasional grousing about the very slow implementation of SUL, stable versions, image moving, and innumerable other valuable features and enhancements; I doubt I'd hear as many complaints if there were more developers and servers.
[...]
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does this really mean what it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
No, the current lawsuits don't matter because potential damages are small. Therefore the present cash reserves are enough. That's how I read it anyway.
That's a reasonable reading, yes, but because I was unsure how to read it, I mentioned it.
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
There are no shared staff anymore, and no shared costs. The audit tells you about the recent history of Wikimedia, not the present.
OK. So this will be a nonissue in the next audit report.
Historically, Jimmy Wales, Bomis and Wikia have supported Wikipedia. Initially, Wikipedia was just a UseMod instance running on one of Bomis's web servers. Wikipedians should be eternally grateful for the support Jimmy and his companies have provided for Wikipedia.
As time went by, Wikimedia developed the means to become fully independent from these entities. Bomis wound down its operations and changed ownership. Wikia moved from Florida to California, taking its staff, and eventually its servers, with it. The Board (which was historically dominated by Jimmy) began to leave the day-to-day running of the organisation to paid management staff.
Public perception has lagged behind these changes, because Jimmy is a press magnet and his name in press reports is invariably prefixed by "Wikipedia founder", whether they are about Wikipedia or Wikia.
It seems rather contradictory to me that you complain about an increase in staffing costs, and then in the next breath, about the fact that historically, costs were kept down by donations from Jimmy, Bomis and Wikia.
-- Tim Starling
I don't see it as contradictory, obviously. I can be concerned about high level of expenditures on staffing and also worry about conflicts of interest and public perception; it'd be silly to say that allowing conflicts of interest to taint our operations and public perceptions is perfectly alright, so long as it reduces staffing costs a little. It's not an either-or; surely it is possible to have both...
-- gwern Tzvrif STEP JTF-6 W Morse EOD DERA Rojdykarna shelter SAPO
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2008.02.11 19:27:28 +1100, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org scribbled 4.1K characters:
Are you saying the tech team should have spent a bit less time on performance optimisation? Because hardware spending is cool but staff spending isn't?
No, you misunderstand me. The most important thing the foundation does is support the community's work; to do that, it handles things like the legalities, and more importantly, tech support. From my perspective, not one dollar should be spent on giving lectures and advocacy and so on while there is yet a technical need
When budgeting for competing interests it's unwise to put all funds to support one to the complete exclusion of other interests. Advocacy and promotion should not go completely without attention. It's hard to imagine when the appetite of techies will ever be satisfied.
Ec
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
So, the audit was released a little while ago (if you missed it, the important thing is at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_2007_fs.pdf). I'm a little surprised at the general silence here - did I just miss the threads or something?
Actually, me too :-)
Anyway, I read through it carefully and found it of great interest. A number of points stuck out at me in particular:
# Isn't it interesting how much Google stock was donated? On top of what I hear were previous donations? Some of the Googlers must like us.
I am not sure what you see as "interesting" here. Stock may be owned and given by anyone. Not Google guys only.
# Wow, that's quite a bit to spend on salaries. And I think the amount is only going to go way up, what with Erik Moeller abruptly
going from non-paid to paid status, and all the other hires. It strikes me as odd to see employee expenses rising past equipment and hosting costs, but I suppose that just marks me as being a product of the old days where the mission of the Foundation was seen as keeping the servers running (and not whatever else the Foundation does these days).
The same (board)/staff who * negotiated much better hosting costs (which decrease operating costs) * provided a lot of optimization work (see Tim email) * got hardware donations (which decrease operating costs) * managed to get hosting donations (eg, Kennisnet)
Even today, most of the activity of the Foundation is about running the website. But to get a 24/24, 7/7 website running, you need tech staff. Once you get bills to pay (high amount and numerous), you need an accountant. Once you get people calling the office once every 5 minutes, you need an office manager. Once you get invited to visit the tribunal from time to time, you need lawyers etc... And once you need more money to get in, you need staff to make the money get in.
There are tasks which may be handled by volunteers. But others tasks may not. And other necessary tasks which could be handled by volunteers are ... not always handled.
# WOW, that's a lot to be spending on travel! I do hope I am not the only one who thinks that spending $264,361 (as compared with $140,605 in the previous year) is excessive.
Firstly, I am concerned by the almost doubling in travel expenditure: I don't see any particular reason for that. Yes, I am sure Jimbo and others did an awful lot of traveling to promote Wikia and its search engine - but that obviously wouldn't be on the Foundation's dime. Yes, no doubt expenses increased with the decline of the dollar, increase in jetfuel costs and so on - but I can't see that. I have to question what good all this traveling does the community. It's eating up an impressive amount of resources (a substantial fraction of what we spend on important stuff like keeping the servers running), and strikes me as 'fat'. If people really want WMF people to give a lecture or something, what's wrong with having them pay the fare? If WMF people need to meet, what's wrong with videoconferencing? Why should donations from strapped college students and so on be going to this.
:#It may just be my overreaction, but the next time I hear the WMF is hurting for funds, I am probably not going to donate; it clearly
has money to spare.
The particular reasons for travel costs increase are * during the previous fiscal year, we had 2 staff members. We now have over 10 staff members, not all of them located at the same place. They need to meet face to face from time to time * when Jimbo was chair, the board basically only met on irc. When I got chair, I made sure that the board would have face to face board meetings. It may be more expensive, but it is also incredibly productive. Additionally, now that we have an office and staff, it also make sense that board members sometimes meet with the staff. Sure enough, it has a cost, but this cost is at the benefit of strategy and control. You do not run an organization of 50 000 dollars (2004) in the same way than an organization of 5 000 000 dollars (2007) * travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania. This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost * last, we are more known (and criticized) than in 2004. There are travels which make sense from a political and advocacy perspective.
I'll add that "others" did not travel to promote Wikia.
I'll also add that in the very very large majority of cases, people who want us to give lectures pay the travel fare.
Last, regarding videoconferencing, you have a point. However, videoconferencing will NEVER replace the richness of real life meeting. For example, no reasonable organization will ever hire an executive director without even meeting her. That's non sense. This said, I agree that installing videoconference system in ALL the homes of board members and offsite staff might be an idea for the future. Will be costly though :-)
# Heh, talk about understatement:
"A substantial number of volunteers make significant contributions of their time in the furtherance of the Organization's projects. The value of this contributed time is not reflected in the accompanying financial statements, since it is not susceptible to objective measurement. Certain contributed services requiring specialized skills are recorded as support and expenses at fair value when determinable, or otherwise at values indicated by the donor."
Yeah. Board members free time is also not measured ;-)
# I must be misunderstanding something, but does this really mean what it seems to me on the face of it:
"Note C - Contingencies In the normal course of business, the Organization receives various threats of litigation on a regular basis. In the opinion of management, the outcome of the pending lawsuits will not materially affect present operations or the financial stability of the Organization."
That the reason current lawsuits don't matter is because there is nothing put aside for them? Seems kind of reckless.
This was very explained by another person. Afaik, we have only one lawsuit going on, and it is pretty obvious there is little to fear from it.
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP
is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
Tim answer was pretty straightforward. We have no share staff. We now share no more office, nor hardware. When Wikia was only a couple of people, Michael was working in WMF office, and paying the rent to WMF. They also had a couple of servers in our hosting facility.
There was sharing in the past. Both organizations decided to make the separation complete and clear, for the sake of both organizations. What else is there to say ?
Yeah, so those were my thoughts on the audit. Anyone else?
I'd love to hear someone say something along those lines
"Thank you to the staff and board to have succeeded to have the Foundation audited for the 4th time"
There are over 200 000 000 people reading Wikipedia everyday. It would be very cool even ONE says "thank you". It would go a long way to keep us working.
Something like
"for every criticism you voice, provide a thank you on another point"
-- gwern primers shell mania LHR anarchy JANET ssa RFI Internet Z-200
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
I'd love to hear someone say something along those lines
"Thank you to the staff and board to have succeeded to have the Foundation audited for the 4th time"
There are over 200 000 000 people reading Wikipedia everyday. It would be very cool even ONE says "thank you". It would go a long way to keep us working.
Something like
"for every criticism you voice, provide a thank you on another point"
I would say that 200,000,000 people looking at your website everyday and implicitly acknowledging your good work by using it is thank you enough (it is for the vast majority of Wikipedians, I don't see why it should be any different for the staff and board). However, if you want it said explicitly:
Thank you very much to the staff, board and auditors for the work that has gone in to producing and auditing these reports. I acknowledge that a lot of work has gone into them, and appreciate it.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
I'd love to hear someone say something along those lines
"Thank you to the staff and board to have succeeded to have the Foundation audited for the 4th time"
There are over 200 000 000 people reading Wikipedia everyday. It would be very cool even ONE says "thank you". It would go a long way to keep us working.
Something like
"for every criticism you voice, provide a thank you on another point"
I would say that 200,000,000 people looking at your website everyday and implicitly acknowledging your good work by using it is thank you enough (it is for the vast majority of Wikipedians, I don't see why it should be any different for the staff and board).
Okay, I wrote a long answer. And then, I deleted it :-) Not because I do not think you do not deserve a fair answer. But because I know it will be public. But yeah, bottom line: board members are volunteers just as you. Praise them, they will work like hell for your pleasure, at your service. Only criticize them, you'll get bad job, or no job at all. Interesting link to read in a great encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation
However, if you want
it said explicitly:
Thank you very much to the staff, board and auditors for the work that has gone in to producing and auditing these reports. I acknowledge that a lot of work has gone into them, and appreciate it.
thanks :-) _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 11, 2008 6:27 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
If you're not happy with it, why did you vote to approve it? You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading.
It isn't "misleading" - financial statements roll up from detailed records, and sometimes the rolled up lines include types of information that aren't closely related. Feel free to dissect the audit records, that is why they are released. The same goes for all financial statements. Don't stray too far in criticizing the volunteer Board personally, though.
There has obviously been a lot of upheaval, but just in the last few months (weeks, even) the degree of professional management has been raised significantly. Rather than focusing on criticizing past practices (aside from scrutinizing the audit for anything obviously wrong, which you can do but I imagine it was done before it was released) a better idea may be to take a "wait and see" approach to coming financial and management results.
I would say, though, that Board responses to inquiries should be handled as a group rather than individually. Additionally, questions about the management (including financial reports approved by the Board, internal audit reports and external reports done at the direction of the Board) should perhaps be responded to by management. Criticism of practices and results (or even questions about reports) shouldn't be taken necessarily as an attack, and responses that sound defensive can be problematic.
Nathan
On Feb 11, 2008 2:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't "misleading"
Maybe it isn't, but Ant stated pretty confidently that she knows it is misleading.
In this case, if the expense was from restricted funds, then I think she's right that it was misleading, though less misleading than 2006, when this expense was filed under "Other". I'd certainly ask Mona or whoever it is that produced the financial statements why it's filed under unrestricted funds. Maybe she or whoever can explain it, then Ant wouldn't have to go saying that the financial statements she voted to approve are misleading. Unless there are other parts she also knows to be misleading..
On Feb 11, 2008 3:00 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I'd certainly ask Mona or whoever it is that produced the financial statements
I think that deserves a few questions:
Who produced the financial statements? When were they completed? When did the board members get access to them? Why were they approved after the audit, and not before?
Anthony wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 2:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't "misleading"
Maybe it isn't, but Ant stated pretty confidently that she knows it is misleading.
In this case, if the expense was from restricted funds, then I think she's right that it was misleading, though less misleading than 2006, when this expense was filed under "Other". I'd certainly ask Mona or whoever it is that produced the financial statements why it's filed under unrestricted funds. Maybe she or whoever can explain it, then Ant wouldn't have to go saying that the financial statements she voted to approve are misleading. Unless there are other parts she also knows to be misleading..
"Misleading" because of the application of hindsight is not on apar with wilfully misleading . Ec
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
If you're not happy with it, why did you vote to approve it? You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading.
It's misleading to us mere mortals - I guess to accountants it's just the way things are done. To my knowledge, Ant isn't an accounting expert, so she has to base her vote on the advice she receives from those that are.
On Feb 11, 2008 3:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
If you're not happy with it, why did you vote to approve it? You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading.
It's misleading to us mere mortals - I guess to accountants it's just the way things are done. To my knowledge, Ant isn't an accounting expert, so she has to base her vote on the advice she receives from those that are.
That's all fine and well, but if she receives advice from someone and is happy with their explanation, then she shouldn't later say she isn't happy with it and that it's misleading.
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 3:38 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
If you're not happy with it, why did you vote to approve it? You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading.
It's misleading to us mere mortals - I guess to accountants it's just the way things are done. To my knowledge, Ant isn't an accounting expert, so she has to base her vote on the advice she receives from those that are.
That's all fine and well, but if she receives advice from someone and is happy with their explanation, then she shouldn't later say she isn't happy with it and that it's misleading.
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
Acknowledging that something is misleading is not the same as not understanding it. If she didn't understand it, she most likely asked someone to explain it to her before voting. She said she wasn't happy with the way it was presented, not that she wasn't happy with the facts.
On Feb 11, 2008 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
Acknowledging that something is misleading is not the same as not understanding it.
No, it isn't. But I've applied Hanlon's razor here.
If she didn't understand it, she most likely asked someone to explain it to her before voting. She said she wasn't happy with the way it was presented, not that she wasn't happy with the facts.
The whole point of the financial statements is to clearly present the facts. When you vote to approve the financial statements, you are voting to approve the presentation, not voting to approve the facts (the facts can't be changed, they don't need approving).
I'm sorry, I stand by my statement that you shouldn't vote to approve financial statements if you "know" they're misleading and are not happy with the way they present things. When you vote "yes" to such a resolution, you're pretty much explicitly saying you're happy with the way they present things. That's the whole point of the vote. If you aren't happy, you don't vote "yes". You either get an explanation so that you are happy, you abstain, or you vote "no".
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
Acknowledging that something is misleading is not the same as not understanding it.
No, it isn't. But I've applied Hanlon's razor here.
I don't see how anything Ant has done was either stupid or malicious...
The whole point of the financial statements is to clearly present the facts.
To people with a decent amount of financial knowledge, yes. To an accountant, it probably makes perfect sense to group certain things together, and that's why they do it. It clearly makes no sense to me, you or Ant, but we're not really the intended audience - that's why people employ accountants and brokers in order to deal with the details that they don't have the training to understand.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
Acknowledging that something is misleading is not the same as not understanding it.
No, it isn't. But I've applied Hanlon's razor here.
I don't see how anything Ant has done was either stupid or malicious...
The whole point of the financial statements is to clearly present the facts.
To people with a decent amount of financial knowledge, yes. To an accountant, it probably makes perfect sense to group certain things together, and that's why they do it. It clearly makes no sense to me, you or Ant, but we're not really the intended audience - that's why people employ accountants and brokers in order to deal with the details that they don't have the training to understand.
Precisely. The FS on the audit document are presented with an accounting perspective. Not for the general audience. Their most important message is:
"In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. as of June 30, 2007 and 2006, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. "
The goal of an audit is not to provide breakdowns of each line. I know, and I regret that you were not provided with detailed breakdown or a budget during year 2006-2007. The fact that I regret the public was not provided this breakdown is totally irrelevant to the audit itself and does not preclude I mistakenly approved the audit.
Now, situation is changing and improving. In fall, Sue already provided the board with a more detailed budget, and provided a public first shot estimate of our expenses, with http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Planned_Spending_Distribution_2007-2008
Also, we have just announced the hiring of our new Chief Financial and Operating Officer (CFOO), and we are providing the necessary personnel support to manage all of our expenses, donations, and overall budgetary activity. Through 2008, more detailed administrative and cost management policies will be put into place as well, further improving our accountability to donors, Board, and to the entire volunteer and user community.
Does that clarify things ?
ant
On Feb 12, 2008 4:51 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Precisely. The FS on the audit document are presented with an accounting perspective. Not for the general audience.
Financial statements are not written just for accountants, but anyone with "a reasonable knowledge of business and economic activities and accounting and who are willing to study the information diligently".
The goal of an audit is not to provide breakdowns of each line.
My concern was over the financial statements, not the audit, but in any case breakdowns of each line is not required.
I know, and I regret that you were not provided with detailed breakdown or a budget during year 2006-2007.
It's not something you have to regret. You're still on the board. Write a resolution that the WMF will provide us with detailed breakdown and a budget for year 2006-2007. Maybe it won't pass, but at least you tried.
The fact that I regret the public was not provided this breakdown is totally irrelevant to the audit itself and does not preclude I mistakenly approved the audit.
Again, I'm not talking about the audit, I'm talking about the financial statements. Try not to mix the two up. In your resolution, you approve the financial statements, not the audit.
That said, not providing a breakdown is one thing. Combining things in misleading ways is another. These are your financial statements. You should be happy with them before you approve them. If you want to break something out, break it out, or at least put in a clarifying note. 7 categories of expenses is not very many. 8 would have been fine. The note about amounts from 2006 being reclassified to conform with the 2007 presentation didn't have to be so cryptic, it could have explained what was reclassified. "Contributions that are restricted by the donor" don't have to be "reported as an increase in unrestricted net assets if the restriction expires in the reporting period in which the contributions are received."
Does that clarify things ?
A little. But I still have some questions which I asked at the bottom of my last email. And I hope you pursue that resolution to provide us with more detailed statements, if not now then in the future. Why not provide us with unaudited statements on a quarterly basis to supplement the annual audited statement?
On Feb 11, 2008 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The whole point of the financial statements is to clearly present the facts.
To people with a decent amount of financial knowledge, yes. To an accountant, it probably makes perfect sense to group certain things together, and that's why they do it. It clearly makes no sense to me, you or Ant, but we're not really the intended audience - that's why people employ accountants and brokers in order to deal with the details that they don't have the training to understand.
To quote Wikipedia, <quote>Financial statements are intended to be understandable by readers who have "a reasonable knowledge of business and economic activities and accounting and who are willing to study the information diligently."</quote> And the statements do make sense at least to me - though they may or may not be misleading depending on the facts which I am not privy to. Again, I never said the statements are misleading, Ant did. And I fully agree with one thing Ray said: "Since an audit was involved, any misleading statements should have been commented by the auditors." In fact, I think that statement is quite analogous to my original one that "You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading." For the logically impaired, neither Ray nor I are saying that the statements *are* misleading, our statements are hypothetical ones.
Who produced the financial statements? When were they completed? When did the board members get access to them? Why were they approved after the audit, and not before?
Who produced the financial statements?
Draft financial statements were provided to the audit committee by Mona Venkateswaran on the 21th of january. After approval by the audit committee, the board was officially informed by the chair of the audit committee on the 25th of january.
When were they completed?
See above
When did the board members get access to them?
Unofficially, on the 21st of january. Officially, on the 25th.
Why were they approved after the audit, and not before?
The audit was achieved on the 2nd of february.
Write a resolution that the WMF will provide us with detailed
breakdown and a budget for year 2006-2007
No, I will not do that, because it is not a board level decision. As board member, I proposed the following values http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values#Current_proposition
You will note:
"Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public"
The Executive Director is aware of these values and of the importance of transparency for the board. It is her job to make sure that transparency is always in mind of the staff and to make sure all parties receive appropriate information. It is her responsibility to decide when and how this will happen, according to the resources available to do the job.
The resolution you are suggesting is far too precise in that regards.
On Feb 12, 2008 3:54 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Who produced the financial statements?
Draft financial statements were provided to the audit committee by Mona Venkateswaran on the 21th of january. After approval by the audit committee, the board was officially informed by the chair of the audit committee on the 25th of january.
That would be a good explanation as to why "the audit took so long", if the financial statements weren't done until the end of January.
Write a resolution that the WMF will provide us with detailed breakdown and a budget for year 2006-2007
No, I will not do that, because it is not a board level decision.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but I appreciate the direct response.
In my never-humble opinion, this is dangerously close to trolling.
It's intellectually dishonest to take what Anthere said: "I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either." and then portray that as her approving a financial that she didn't understand.
She clearly understood it enough to have an objection to the way it was grouped. That doesn't mean she is obliged to vote down the entire financial because she doesn't like the way ONE line item is rolled up.
You owe her an apology. You seriously mis-stated what it is that Anthere said.
I repeat my premise: Anthony, your argument is intellectually dishonest, and thus on shaky ground.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Anthony" wikimail@inbox.org Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:58 PM To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Foundation audit
That's all fine and well, but if she receives advice from someone and is happy with their explanation, then she shouldn't later say she isn't happy with it and that it's misleading.
I don't have a problem with the statement. I have a problem with someone voting to approve a statement that they don't understand.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Feb 11, 2008 6:45 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
In my never-humble opinion, this is dangerously close to trolling.
I second this opinion. All of the emails claiming that the audit is misleading smell of "I have nothing better to do than complain about stuff that isn't really a big deal because I like drama."
No offense intended and I'm not saying that this is the motivation at all, but it sure looks that way from here.
On Feb 12, 2008 12:17 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 6:45 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
In my never-humble opinion, this is dangerously close to trolling.
I second this opinion. All of the emails claiming that the audit is misleading smell of "I have nothing better to do than complain about stuff that isn't really a big deal because I like drama."
No offense intended and I'm not saying that this is the motivation at all, but it sure looks that way from here.
I'm not the one who said the statements were misleading, Ant did.
Anthony wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 6:27 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
It can be separated on the budget, but apparently, in the end, it is still "travel"... I know it is misleading, I am not so happy with that either.
If you're not happy with it, why did you vote to approve it? You shouldn't ever vote to approve financial statements that you know to be misleading.
It seems like a bit of a leap to move from the suggestion that two classes of travel should be accounted in separate accounts to an approval of misleading statements. Since an audit was involved, any misleading statements should have been commented by the auditors.
Ec
On Feb 11, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
Since the Foundation runs on donations, everything is paid for by someone else if you want to think about it like that.
On Feb 11, 2008 8:57 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Even today, most of the activity of the Foundation is about running the website. But to get a 24/24, 7/7 website running, you need tech staff. Once you get bills to pay (high amount and numerous), you need an accountant. Once you get people calling the office once every 5 minutes, you need an office manager. Once you get invited to visit the tribunal from time to time, you need lawyers etc... And once you need more money to get in, you need staff to make the money get in.
I suspect that many of the qualms people have about the cost of salaries is that many people aren't particularly familiar with what all the staff do. We'd love to hear more about all the good work they do :)
On 11/02/2008, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 9:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- travel costs include scholarships of wikipedians to go to Wikimania.
This is not really a cost since we got restricted donations from sponsors to precisely cover that cost
In that case, shouldn't it be noted separately on the financial reports? It's rather misleading having something that was paid for by someone else grouped in with something that was paid for from general foundation funds.
Since the Foundation runs on donations, everything is paid for by someone else if you want to think about it like that.
Yes, but in this case it's a specific someone else.
<snip> I suspect that many of the qualms people have about the cost of salaries is that many people aren't particularly familiar with what all the staff do. We'd love to hear more about all the good work they do :) </snip>
That's a very good point, I don't want to sound patronising, but Wikipedia is going to be the first company that lots of our users and benefactors will have any experience of dealing with, or any real interest in, and many of the people looking at our accounts will simply not understand why so much is spent on particular things. People always point out that hosting packages are available for a few hundred dollars per year for example. I think there's a real need not just to account for each dollar that is spent, but the reasons behind why each dollar has to be spent. So much of what we see explaining situations is a rather defensive approach, which can be counter productive, and I know that's not anybodies fault, we often expect inquisitive users to have more of an understanding into how costly running a website is.
So, let's take the initiative and flesh out the accounts into a big explanation of what we do and how we do it, for all to see. It might even raise some extra money when people realise just what is involved in running one of the 10 most popular websites in the world.
On Feb 11, 2008 10:03 AM, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote: [snip]
People always point out that hosting packages are available for a few hundred dollars per year for example. I think there's a real need not just to account for each dollar that is spent, but the reasons behind why each dollar has to be spent.
[snip]
Is it enough to point out here that Wikipedia is, roughly, one of the ten most visited websites and that you can't run one of those with a $100/month low-rent shared hosting service? :)
Otherwise I don't know how to address it since that question implies such a fundamental lack of understanding that nothing short of a novel length reply is really going to make the person well informed.
On Feb 11, 2008 7:28 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Otherwise I don't know how to address it since that question implies such a fundamental lack of understanding that nothing short of a novel length reply is really going to make the person well informed.
Perhaps more visibility of what exactly IS required would be a help; the Foundation has historically (and probably deliberately) been low-key, but more of an effort at trumpeting 'This is what we do and how we do it' would probably go a long way towards making people feel happier.
In the end, though, true idiocy can't be educated, you're right.
-Matt
Perhaps more visibility of what exactly IS required would be a help; the Foundation has historically (and probably deliberately) been low-key, but more of an effort at trumpeting 'This is what we do and how we do it' would probably go a long way towards making people feel happier.
A series of "A day in the life of..." articles written by members of staff in Signpost or somewhere would be very interesting to read.
gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
# As usual, relationships with Wikia are concerningly close and ambiguous:
"The Organization shares hosting and bandwidth costs with Wikia, Inc., a for-profit company founded by the same founder as Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Included in accounts receivable at June 30, 2007 is $6,000 due from Wikia, Inc. for these costs. The Organization received some donated office space from Wikia Inc. during the year ended June 30, 2006 valued at $6,000. No donation of the office space occurred in 2007. Through June 30, 2007, two members of the Organization's board of directors also serve as employees, officers, or directors of Wikia, Inc."
They share staff, WP favors Wikia in well-known ways, and so on - and people are surprised when the public perception is that WP is the non-profit branch of Wikia, or vice versa? I'm also troubled by the sharing of costs bit - why is Wikia using WMF resources (presumably why they are paying WMF) and isn't it awfully convenient how the two amounts cancel out? Small potatoes, but still.
Since the audit covers a period of time that's in the past, a few last vestiges of the Olden Days were still in effect during the audit period and are naturally covered.
Today, Wikia and Wikimedia don't share any data hosting.
We don't currently share any office space.
We don't currently share any employees.
So what is the current relationship?
* We do currently share one board member, Jimmy Wales.
* Wikia sometimes sponsors Wikimedia events or makes other donations to Wikimedia.
* Wikia uses our open-source software, and sometimes contributes back patches or plugins.
* Various people are involved in the communities of sites operated by both companies. (Eg, our target audiences overlap.)
And what was the past relationship? Here's a quick historical summary:
2001-2002:
* Wikipedia is created as a side project that Jimmy Wales kindly operates on servers belonging to his company, Bomis.
* Wikipedia gets dedicated servers, kindly donated and hosted by Jimmy/Bomis.
2003-2005:
* Jimmy moves from Southern California to Florida, taking both Bomis and Wikipedia with him.
* Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is founded to start taking over Wikipedia's resources so it can be operated independently as a not-for-profit.
* For convenience, Jimmy and Michael (pretty much the entire company at the time) share a tiny office in Saint Petersburg, and a hosting center in Tampa, between the two companies. The hosting costs of the two companies are accounted separately.
* WikiCities/Wikia is founded; Bomis "fades away".
[audit period starts here]
2006-2007
* Wikia gets private funding, moves offices and most of their hosting from Florida to Northern California.
* The Florida hosting account and office space are taken over fully by Wikimedia. (That's the one-time donation of office space you see in the audit.)
* A whopping 3 Wikia servers remain in Florida; Wikia pays Wikimedia monthly rent to cover hosting of those servers. (That's the shared hosting costs you see above in the audit.)
* Wikimedia expands its own staff to better handle its growing requirements: tech staff, finance, fundraising, legal, office staff, public relations.
[audit period ends here]
2007-2008
* The last remaining non-Jimmy, Wikia-related Wikimedia board member resigns. (That's the end of 50% of the board overlap you see above in the audit.)
* Wikimedia moves offices to elsewhere in Northern California (*not* sharing office space with Wikia, which is miles away in a different city).
* The last three Wikia servers in Florida are shut off. (That's the end of the shared hosting costs you see above in the audit.)
(There may be minor details off, this is from memory.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)