Please allow me to offer you another perspective. As Chair of Wikimedia Foundation Board, member since 2004. And as founding member of Wikimedia France, and currently on its board as well.
I'd like us to go beyond the current discussion... and maybe think a little bit ahead, reflecting on the future.
Some of you may have some experience of being a member of a non profit association. In most cases, a small organization.
Some of you may be living in a country where there is a wikimedia chapter. (if you are not sure, please check: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters)
The first Wikimedia Chapter born in 2004, just a few months after the Foundation (the German Chapter). The following one was the French chapter, which was created in october 2004. Many other chapters followed. And many more are to come.
Chapters are usually associations of users, and registered as non profits. The revenue essentially come from membership fees, donations, grants, and sometimes commercial income (eg, royalties). In majority, donations and membership fees.
I bet that if we were to ask the casual Wikipedia editor if he is aware of the existence of chapters, he would probably open big surprised eyes (OH, WIKIMEDIA CHAPTER ? WHAT IS THIS ?). For those who heard about chapters and are maybe even thinking of creating a chapter, or joining a chapter, it is very likely that in their mind, in terms of MONEY, the Foundation is the BIG SERIOUS stuff, whilst the chapter is merely a side-happy-thing.
(Note: for those of you who do not know chapters, please check out what they are doing. Chapter activity is properly amazing. Consider joining. UK chapter and Australia chapters in particular)
--------
I saw so many discussions related to the finances of the Foundation, such as allegations of misuse of donors money, mismanagement, poor governance, insufficient control... that I really wonder if people here, really realize that the Foundation is still -somehow- a small organization. We now have a staff of 15 and a 5 million dollar budget; and this is still very tiny. But fact is, the Foundation is less than 5 years old. And 5 years ago, the Foundation was merely a piece of paper. We had to grow to follow Wikipedia growth. Back in 2004, we were very very very tiny. And we try to do the best with the resources we had. I welcome discussions on how we ensure controls, to the limits that it is meant to be constructive and will not have more negative sides than positives.
Now... to go beyond this, a thought....
Have you EVER discussed the possibility that the money received by chapters from donors, be somehow, misused ? that the chapters might have poor management ? that the chapters might have poor governance ? Have unsufficient control ?
Has any chapter travel expenses reimbursement policy ? Bank savings policy ? Confidentiality agreement policy ? Conflict of interest policy ?
Is any chapter audited ?
When I write this, I am pretty sure I am hearing your thoughts. "OH, BUT THERE IS NO COMPARISON !"
And why not ?
Why not ?
The money received by the chapters come from donors just as well. In the name of Wikipedia. If there are so many discussions and criticism on how we handle the Foundation (in the name of "we must respect the wishes of donors") why is there no discussion and no criticism on how we handle the chapters ?
--------
The facts we are currently discussing are 3 years old. In 2004, the organization revenue was 80 000 dollars. In 2005, the organization revenue was 380 000 dollars.
As a matter of comparison, which I find myself interesting, the german chapter got a significant amount of donations during this winter fundraiser. You'll find exact figures here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2007/Report). In two months, the chapter collected USD 208,000.
The german chapter currently has only one staff member (Arne Klempert). I do not exactly know much their annual revenue is, but could I try a guess ? Perhaps 300 000 dollars ? 400 000 dollars ?
Very likely, more than what WMF got in 2005. Back in those times about which complaints are now made upon Jimbo providing his receipts with delay.
I'd like us to project ourselves in the future. Maybe in three years from now.
Where will the Foundation be ? I am not sure. Where will chapters be ? I could guess that a couple of chapters will enjoy a similar revenue to what the Foundation is getting RIGHT NOW. And maybe chapters will even be the biggest source of the revenue of the Foundation. Who knows ?
What I know is this
* if you want a really clean organization overall, with full respect of the donors, then the controls must be discussed and set at all levels and in all organizations. Not WMF only. (I am not saying that any chapter do anything wrong; this is long term perspective).
* the levels of control must fit the degree of development of the organization. An organization of 10 000 dollars (one of our new chapters), of 400 000 dollars (Wikimedia Germany in 2007) or of 5 000 000 dollars (WMF in 2008) do not require the same controls. There is no sense to expect very tight controls from an organization which is not even able to afford a real accountant (WMF in 2005).
* it is *urgent* to clarify the relationships between the Foundation and the chapters, in particular the financial one. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be, because there will be more actors to deal with, and because the more money is involved, the more power is involved, the more politic is involved, the dirtier it is likely to become.
The past is the past. You may trust me or not if I tell you that past issues have been fixed. But please look at the future as well.
Ant
Thanks Florence. I agree that the financial relationship, if there is a formal one, between the Foundation and Chapters should be clarified as soon as possible.
I'll throw out a couple of reasons why the Chapters receive less attention to their finances, though:
1) the chapters have no assets other than donations, i.e. no control over Wikimedia projects 2) laws regulating the chapters are known only to those who are likely to be members, and may have no relation to what I at least am familiar with regarding US law 3) discussions about controls and etc. are probably more likely to be found on chapter mailing lists, rather than Foundation-l. 4) If a Chapter crashes and burns and its founders go to jail, the effect on the Foundation will be in the area of public relations only, and then possibly not significant. (aside from any lost donation income from that chapter).
There are others, I'm sure. Still, I think clarifying the expectations of the community and Foundations regarding management issues is important. The power of the Foundation may be no more than formal disassociation and revoking, if possible, permission to use marks of Wikimedia. That, at least, will help with any PR fallout.
Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Thanks Florence. I agree that the financial relationship, if there is a formal one, between the Foundation and Chapters should be clarified as soon as possible.
I'll throw out a couple of reasons why the Chapters receive less attention to their finances, though:
- the chapters have no assets other than donations, i.e. no control over
Wikimedia projects
The only real assets from that perspective, are the trademarks. One could envision a chapter becoming big enough to be able to host a sad abandonned Wikipedia if the Foundation gets in trouble. The moral control only go as far as the community wants to give control.
- laws regulating the chapters are known only to those who are likely to be
members, and may have no relation to what I at least am familiar with regarding US law
True, but that does not lessen the interest of controls... not counting that we might have a US chapter in the future :-) Also, even on this list, there are many who are more familiar, say, with UK law than with US law (eg, frequent discussion over libel issues in UK).
- discussions about controls and etc. are probably more likely to be found
on chapter mailing lists, rather than Foundation-l.
Correct. I just launched a discussion over COI policy on the french chapter list :-) However, if we turn out to really be a global mouvement, might be worth including such requirements in chapter approval.
- If a Chapter crashes and burns and its founders go to jail, the effect on
the Foundation will be in the area of public relations only, and then possibly not significant. (aside from any lost donation income from that chapter).
If a board member of Wikimedia Foundation (even Jimmy) goes to jail, the effect on the Foundation will be only in the area of public relations...
There are others, I'm sure. Still, I think clarifying the expectations of the community and Foundations regarding management issues is important. The power of the Foundation may be no more than formal disassociation and revoking, if possible, permission to use marks of Wikimedia. That, at least, will help with any PR fallout.
Nod
Ant
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing listd WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/03/2008, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
(Note: for those of you who do not know chapters, please check out what they are doing. Chapter activity is properly amazing. Consider joining. UK chapter and Australia chapters in particular)
UK one could be tricky.
Have you EVER discussed the possibility that the money received by chapters from donors, be somehow, misused ? that the chapters might have poor management ? that the chapters might have poor governance ? Have unsufficient control ?
Yes although since no one appears to have figured out how to give the UK one money yet the first issue probably doesn't apply.