As part of the NEH grant proposal I would like to budget the hiring of a full
time on-site server admin/PHP software coder (his/her time would be split
between babysitting the servers, installing/troubleshooting servers,
recommending new server purchases, and improving parts of MediaWiki that no
volunteer wants to touch much - esp in the area of performance bottlenecks).
But since even thinking about setting up benefit packages gives me a major
headache, I would like to first see us hire a person on a limited term but
renewable contract. For example, I'm currently under such contract doing GIS
work for 30 dollars an hour. I'm an independent contractor and thus am
responsible for my own benefit package (or lack thereof), business license,
insurance, and taxes. The local government I work for is therefore not
responsible for any overhead other than the small amount of work that my
contract manager has to put into processing my invoices.
So my question is: What is the going hourly rate for a server admin with
Brion-level knowledge under such a contract?
I will also be researching how much a small office near the colo would cost. A
full time secretary/receptionist could be hired through a temp agency. It will
probably be some time before we could have real employees.
I also plan to budget $2000 for relocation costs in case anybody is interested
(perhaps a bit more for international relocation). :)
Important note: So far all of the above is contingent on getting the grant. The
deadline for submitting that grant is also fast approaching.
Daniel Mayer,
Wikimedia CFO
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I am all for all of these ideas. I too have strong reservations about a snail
mail fundraising drive. On the other hand, I do think that we have to take
the fundraising campaign beyond our base of contributors, who are limited in
number, and, in many cases, whose funds are even more limited.
Danny
>
> > How about having checkboxes in user preferences:
> > *Become a Volunteer Active Member [ ]
> > *Receive Wikimedia emails [ ]
> > *Become a Contributing Active Member [ ] (leads to a form where you
> > can pay dues)
> >
> > Links should be given on that part of the user preferences page to
> > terms and conditions, the bylaws, the privacy policy etc.
> The initial target ought to be those who have already shown some interest - our curent authors/editors. It also ought to be electronic - I shudder at the thought of the cost of sending out snailmail requests which will just end up in the circular file. PayPal may or may not be an option - I don't know. But let's begin with those already in
> the fold before we launch more expensive campaigns outside it. (Alternatively, we could buy 30 seconds of TV time on the next World Cup. Kidding.)
> Denni
> --
Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty.
Angela_ wrote:
>5) Board members
>
>Tim and Michael will have less active involvement than the other
>members of the Board but Jimbo stated that their presence on the Board would not mean the votes of Angela and Anthere would be automatically overridden. It was suggested that the Board should be enlarged at some point, possibly later this year, and that prominent people external to Wikipedia could be invited to hold positions on the Board.
>
While it might be nice to recruit prominent Board members from outside
Wikipedia (this could help with visibility and fundraising), we also
need to be sure that people on the Board are willing to be actively
involved. Tim Shell and Michael Davis are okay for now, as associates of
Jimbo, but without a professional staff to run the Foundation we can't
afford to have most of our Board members at that level of involvement.
One possibility is to include additional community representation as
part of any Board expansion. Another idea is that these prominent
people, if they can't make the commitment necessary to serve on the
Board, might be given other advisory roles instead.
It's also possible for the Board to get too big, so that it's no longer
effective or able to make decisions when needed. At five members, we're
certainly not in danger of that yet, but it's something that must be
considered if we expand the Board.
>6) AOB
>
>Jimbo will contact a German lawyer regarding the registration of the
>Wikimedia trademark in Germany, which someone else is currently
>attempting to register.
>
This is the first I've heard about this attempt. If it's not too much
trouble, I would be interested to get some more information about it
(off-list is fine). I might also be able to help with the communications
if necessary, since I speak German, though I have no particular training
in German law.
--Michael Snow
reflection(a)gmail.com wrote:
>I have taken up the /Staff section of of the grant application.
>Having consulted with others the best way to do this seems to be for
>anyone willing to help with the grant to send a résumé to
>reflection(a)gmail.com. I will compile them. Please tailor your
>experiences/education towards relevancy to WikiMedia.
>
>We are especially interested in résumés from developers and
>bureaucrats, but all are necessarily welcome. All Board members are
>asked to submit. In addition, we need as many people as possible to
>answer the following questions. Please do not reply to the mailing
>list, but to reflection(a)gmail.com This will prevent clutter and will
>maintain your privacy/anonymity.
>
>1) What is your full name and nickname? (Include a URL to your user page).
>
>2) Describe your duties at Wikipedia and qualifications for those
>duties. If you have a title what is your title, and how long have you
>held it.
>
>3) Indicate the amount of time that you, the projects staff,
>anticipate committing to the project on a monthly basis (hours), and
>for how many months, years.
>
If the author of this email is not willing to even identify themselves
to us, I don't see why any of us would want to send them a résumé. Also,
I can't understand why résumés from bureaucrats would be requested in
this context.
Note that the Staff section of the grant page was only just made into a
subpage by an IP address. It has since been edited only by that same IP
address and a user named Alterego (except for one minor edit by
Eloquence). The username, plus Alterego's extremely short contribution
history on Meta and en:, sets off all my sockpuppet alerts. In fact, my
initial impulse is to attribute this to Bird, given that user's peculiar
interest in "exposing" Wikipedia as a front for who knows what. No doubt
Bird could concoct all kinds of conspiracy theories out of our
collective résumés.
If the request is legitimate, and I'm the one spinning conspiracy
theories, then two (actually, three) requests. One, could you please
tell us who you really are? Two, would somebody who's a little more "in
charge" of the grant process, like Danny or one of the board members,
confirm that soliciting this information is actually necessary and
appropriate at this time? Finally, when you reply to a digest version of
this list, please do not include the entire digest in your reply. Thank you.
--Michael Snow
I have taken up the /Staff section of of the grant application.
Having consulted with others the best way to do this seems to be for
anyone willing to help with the grant to send a résumé to
reflection(a)gmail.com. I will compile them. Please tailor your
experiences/education towards relevancy to WikiMedia.
We are especially interested in résumés from developers and
bureaucrats, but all are necessarily welcome. All Board members are
asked to submit. In addition, we need as many people as possible to
answer the following questions. Please do not reply to the mailing
list, but to reflection(a)gmail.com This will prevent clutter and will
maintain your privacy/anonymity.
1) What is your full name and nickname? (Include a URL to your user page).
2) Describe your duties at Wikipedia and qualifications for those
duties. If you have a title what is your title, and how long have you
held it.
3) Indicate the amount of time that you, the projects staff,
anticipate committing to the project on a monthly basis (hours), and
for how many months, years.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:26:54 +0000 (UTC),
foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
<foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: NEH grant (Daniel Mayer)
> 2. Re: Re: NEH grant (Daniel Mayer)
> 3. Re: Re: NEH grant (Daniel Mayer)
> 4. Re: Re: NEH grant (Daniel Mayer)
> 5. Status of logo copyright (Angela_)
> 6. Re: NEH grant (Michael Snow)
> 7. Re: Status of logo copyright (Imran Ghory)
> 8. Re: Status of logo copyright (Imran Ghory)
> 9. Wikimedia Foundation Meeting, 4 July 2004 (Angela_)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 00:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] NEH grant
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040709075246.29141.qmail(a)web51608.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- Sj <2.718281828(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Mahan
> > And we should renew our efforts to get support through donation, no
> > matter what. Demonstrating a strong ongoing base of community support will
> > help overcome the obstacle of not yet being a proper 501c3.
>
> I completely agree.
>
> > I agree wholeheartedly with this:
> >
> > > I would rather mav publish a monthly budget and post that to the
> > > front page, like this:
>
> A monthly budget will require a monthly trustee meeting to approve such a
> document before posting. But doing so on the front page of any Wikimedia
> website seems to be like begging to me (or at least too much emphasis on
> financial matters). A permanent link and/or mention on the fundraising page
> along with a temporary mention on every page during fund drives seems to be
> enough, IMO.
>
> > We should spur donations right away. I hope we are planning to
> > get new machines in the coming week(s?); we need to replace the
> > money we are spending. $2500 a month sounds like a reasonable
> > budget estimate for the rest of the year, and I think we could easily
> > meet that need through contributions.
>
> I have forecasted that we will need to spend between $25,000 to $30,000 on
> hardware this quarter to keep up with the projected increase in traffic over
> last quarter. If our growth rate continues at 90% compounded quarterly, then we
> should expect to have to spend a bit less than twice that amount in Q4.
>
> Things get a bit scary after that if we continue growing at the same rate (I'm
> still working on mitigating factors such as Moores law and still need to check
> with the developers to see if page requests, visits, or something else are a
> better measure of traffic - I've been using page requests).
>
> In short - $2500 per month will not be enough.
>
> Also, with all those servers the need for a full time on-site server admin
> increases.
>
> Daniel Mayer,
> Wikimedia CFO
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: NEH grant
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040709081418.99181.qmail(a)web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > However, it would be nice to see more frequent updates just about
> > fundraising progress, which is what this suggestion focuses on. Those
> > who are particularly interested in this should be encouraged to donate
> > the funds necessary so that we can start paying Mav a salary. Otherwise,
> > it's unfair to expect anyone to assume that burden.
>
> Actually please don't donate money for that - giving me money will not increase
> the number of hours in the day or reduce the number of hours I need to sleep
> (Wikipedia/Wikimedia is nearly a second full time job for me). Also, doing so
> would only add a small incentive for me to do more work in this area since I
> strongly suspect that such pay would pale in comparison to what I now receive
> as a GIS specialist (thus I would have to keep my day job). A full time server
> admin is far more important.
>
> More voluneers welcome in the finance department. :)
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: NEH grant
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040709081425.83878.qmail(a)web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > However, it would be nice to see more frequent updates just about
> > fundraising progress, which is what this suggestion focuses on. Those
> > who are particularly interested in this should be encouraged to donate
> > the funds necessary so that we can start paying Mav a salary. Otherwise,
> > it's unfair to expect anyone to assume that burden.
>
> Actually please don't donate money for that - giving me money will not increase
> the number of hours in the day or reduce the number of hours I need to sleep
> (Wikipedia/Wikimedia is nearly a second full time job for me). Also, doing so
> would only add a small incentive for me to do more work in this area since I
> strongly suspect that such pay would pale in comparison to what I now receive
> as a GIS specialist (thus I would have to keep my day job). A full time server
> admin is far more important.
>
> More voluneers welcome in the finance department. :)
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 01:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: NEH grant
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040709081432.45409.qmail(a)web51610.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > However, it would be nice to see more frequent updates just about
> > fundraising progress, which is what this suggestion focuses on. Those
> > who are particularly interested in this should be encouraged to donate
> > the funds necessary so that we can start paying Mav a salary. Otherwise,
> > it's unfair to expect anyone to assume that burden.
>
> Actually please don't donate money for that - giving me money will not increase
> the number of hours in the day or reduce the number of hours I need to sleep
> (Wikipedia/Wikimedia is nearly a second full time job for me). Also, doing so
> would only add a small incentive for me to do more work in this area since I
> strongly suspect that such pay would pale in comparison to what I now receive
> as a GIS specialist (thus I would have to keep my day job). A full time server
> admin is far more important.
>
> More voluneers welcome in the finance department. :)
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:30:01 +0100
> From: Angela_ <beesley(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Status of logo copyright
> To: foundation-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <8b722b800407092330124c7035(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> (forwarded from wikipedia-l)
>
> > --- David Friedland <david(a)nohat.net> wrote on wikipedia-l
> > > Before I left on my unannounced wikivacation, Jimbo
> > > e-mailed me about
> > > the copyright logo. He seemed to be under the
> > > impression that I had
> > > assigned my rights to the logo to the Wikimedia
> > > foundation, but I don't
> > > believe that I had.
> > >
> > > I am happy to assign my copyrights over the logo to
> > > the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. However, I am unsure how to do that in a
> > > binding way.
> > > Furthermore, I don't believe that the Foundation
> > > actually owns any
> > > copyrights yet and I have some questions about how
> > > this will be handled.
> > > Has anyone else assigned their copyrights to the
> > > Foundation? Are there
> > > policies about how the foundation is going to handle
> > > the copyrights it
> > > holds? What benefit would there be to my assigning
> > > the copyright to the
> > > foundation rather than just licensing it at no cost
> > > for various purposes?
> > >
> > > As I said, I am happy to assign the copyrights to
> > > the foundation, but I
> > > want to be sure of what I am doing before I jump in
> > > and do it, because
> > > there are no "take-backs" in the world of copyright.
> > >
> > > - David Friedland
>
> David, it's great to hear you are happy to do this. As far as I know,
> the only copyrights assigned to the Foundation so far are those of
> Jimbo and certain edits by Bomis staff. The Foundation doesn't
> currently have any policies on the handling of its copyrights. I don't
> know how binding making an informal assignment on the mailing list
> would be; perhaps a lawyer could advise whether you need to physically
> sign something.
>
> In terms of benefits, for the Foundation, owning the copyright would
> be easier than having a licence, as it means it is free to do what it
> likes with the logo, rather than having any restrictions that might
> cause problems later on. I'm not sure what the benefits to you are
> though, other than not having to worry about writing a licence, and
> not having the Foundation bothering you in years to come about whether
> they can use the logo for some purpose not originally mentioned in the
> licence.
>
> Angela
> (just my thoughts, not on behalf of Wikimedia)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 08:55:16 -0700
> From: Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: NEH grant
> To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <40F01164.5090200(a)earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> >--- Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> However, it would be nice to see more frequent updates just about
> >> fundraising progress, which is what this suggestion focuses on. Those
> >> who are particularly interested in this should be encouraged to donate
> >> the funds necessary so that we can start paying Mav a salary. Otherwise,
> >> it's unfair to expect anyone to assume that burden.
> >
> >Actually please don't donate money for that - giving me money will not increase
> >the number of hours in the day or reduce the number of hours I need to sleep
> >(Wikipedia/Wikimedia is nearly a second full time job for me). Also, doing so
> >would only add a small incentive for me to do more work in this area since I
> >strongly suspect that such pay would pale in comparison to what I now receive
> >as a GIS specialist (thus I would have to keep my day job). A full time server
> >admin is far more important.
> >
> Sorry, I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek, not as a particularly serious
> suggestion (yet). My point was mostly that if people have expectations
> like that, they need to consider whether they're prepared to contribute
> what's necessary to make it possible. There's only so much you can
> "require" from volunteers. And I agree that for the future day when we
> start hiring salaried employees, a server admin is a bigger priority.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
Update - None of this is official yet:
After many hours checking and rechecking my numbers, I've found that my
previous preliminary estimate of $25K to $30K for a quarter 3 budget was a bit
off. The problem was with my estimate of the amount of money we previously
spent per 1000 hits over the last year. I figured *total* previous hits and
then applied that to projected *increases* in hits in the future. Thus my
estimate was too optimistic.
After recalculating for past *increases* in traffic I've found that if our
traffic increases 90.53% over last quarter by the end of this quarter we will
have to buy $29K to $35K dollars worth of new servers to keep up with the
increase (if we don't have any traffic increase, then we won't have to spend a
dime unless a server has to be replaced). This figure includes a Moore's Law
adjustment which assumes we will be able to serve ~17% more hits per new server
dollar over last quarter (I'm still not 100% confident that that is a valid
assumption - any ideas?). The previous $25K to $30K estimate *did not* include
a Moore's Law adjustment.
Other possibilities:
% growth 35.22% 254.90% 20.00% 50.00% 100.00%
$/1000 hits $11,274.81 $81,595.03 $6,402.22 $16,005.54 $32,011.09
Average $13,609.25 $98,489.19 $7,727.79 $19,319.47 $38,638.95
NOTE: The 35.22% figure is the actual growth from Q1 to Q2 and the 254.90%
figure is the actual growth from Q4 2003 to Q1 2004. The average quarter to
quarter growth over the last couple years, however, is about 90%. But who knows
if this quarter will follow that or do something unpredictable like the last
two quarters.
For the grant proposal I projected 90% quarterly compounded hit growth into
2006. The results are a bit shocking due to exponential growth.
Year annual budget
2004 $110K - $132K
2005 $660K - $797K
2006 $4200K - $5078K
This assumes business as usual (meaning we continue to use the same kind of
commodity-grade rack-mount servers and do not have any real time mirrors -
migrating to 'big-iron' servers and making use of a worldwide squid/mirror
system will mitigate for this).
But there are still probably more errors in my estimates and I doubt we can
continue exponential growth for too long into the future (at least not at the
same absurd rate - 30% hit growth compounded quarterly would be much more
manageable but still exponential).
I'll upload my spreadsheet to meta later so that others can check/improve my
analysis.
Off to bed now though.
Daniel Mayer,
Wikimedia CFO
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Wikimedia Foundation Meeting La Maison des Metallos, Paris, 4 July 2004.
Present: Angela Beesley, Florence Nibart-Devouard and Jimmy Wales.
1) Wikimedia website
2) Developer issues
3) Grants and Official Positions
4) Trademark
5) Board members
6) AOB
1) Wikimedia website
The aim of the Foundation website is to increase the visibility and
transparency of the Foundation and to provide a central location and
summary of all the information.
It was decided to host the Wikimedia Foundation website on a separate
wiki (see http://wikimedia.org/wiki). This allows other users to add
translations, and to help with the addition of technical details,
including page views. Some pages, such as the mission statement, will
be protected and editable only by the Board. Users can suggest changes
to these on Meta, and the changes will be adopted onto the main site
following Board approval.
A number of translations will be needed for widely spoken languages,
including those which currently have only small Wikipedias, such as
Spanish.
Information for the press will be included in a summarized format.
Efforts will be made to keep this up to date, unlike the current pages
on Wikimedia.
Global policies, such as privacy and terms of use, will be included on
this website. While respecting the "wiki way", these will need to be
approved by the board before they are changed for legal reasons.
The wiki will not be open to anonymous edits and only authorized
accounts will be opened.
2) Developer issues
The creation of a developer committee was proposed, with one or two
developers to be assigned official positions by Board.
Sub-committees should be developed, such as one to discuss ways of
checking performance. It was noted that Looxix had requested shell
access to help with the tracking of performance related issues.
Assignment of shell access was discussed and the issue of whom should
be allowed to hand out such access was raised. It was proposed that
when a developer committee is formed, they work on a policy to cover
such issues.
Plans for downtime are needed. The developers should be aware of who
is responsible for ensuring downtime notices are placed on the site,
and that the relevant people, such as Brion Vibber, are informed of
downtime.
Plans to avoid unnecessary downtime should be made.
When planning the hardware architecture, it was noted that we need to
think longer term about this.
3) Grants and Official Positions
When making grant applications, it is important to present a united
front. We should not be presenting multiple applications from
different users without knowing who is sending what. We must appear to
be collaborating on this, so all applications should be logged at one
central location.
Some grant applications require an authorized signature. It was
proposed that grant applications be double signed by the person making
the application and by one member of the Board. This requirement will
be noted on the Wikimedia Foundation website to prevent non-authorized
applications which are not made in the name of Wikimedia.
The Board does not believe there should be any requirements that
people be qualified in any particular field to hold an official
position. We should not limit these places to professionals.
4) Trademark
There is a requirement for certain standards to be met in the places
our logo is used. We should aim to be NPOV rather than give the
impression that the Foundation is endorsing anything. Particular care
should be taken in printed versions that advertising is appropriately
marked as such, and does not appear to be an endorsement.
A policy for situations in which the logo may be used will be
developed. This will ensure it is only used in a way which is
consistent with the community's values.
The situation regarding the rights to use the logo is not yet clear.
Jimbo is in contact with David Friedland (Nohat) about this. It was
felt important that David would not have veto rights over where the
logo is used.
5) Board members
Tim and Michael will have less active involvement than the other
members of the Board but Jimbo stated that their presence on the Board
would not mean the votes of Angela and Anthere would be automatically
overridden. It was suggested that the Board should be enlarged at some
point, possibly later this year, and that prominent people external to
Wikipedia could be invited to hold positions on the Board.
6) AOB
Jimbo will contact a German lawyer regarding the registration of the
Wikimedia trademark in Germany, which someone else is currently
attempting to register.
Alex Roshuk is completing the forms required to gain 501(c)3 status.
Approval was given for the proposed email from the German Wikipedia to
wissen-de regarding our copyright violation.
Daniel Mayer was appointed to the position of Chief Financial Officer.
He will work closely with Anthere on financial matters. Jimbo will ask
Michael Davis to take on the role of treasurer. Michael will have the
role of overseeing the finances at the end of the year, and
occasionally during the year, but Anthere will be responsible for this
on a more day-to-day basis.
----
(forwarded from wikipedia-l)
> --- David Friedland <david(a)nohat.net> wrote on wikipedia-l
> > Before I left on my unannounced wikivacation, Jimbo
> > e-mailed me about
> > the copyright logo. He seemed to be under the
> > impression that I had
> > assigned my rights to the logo to the Wikimedia
> > foundation, but I don't
> > believe that I had.
> >
> > I am happy to assign my copyrights over the logo to
> > the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. However, I am unsure how to do that in a
> > binding way.
> > Furthermore, I don't believe that the Foundation
> > actually owns any
> > copyrights yet and I have some questions about how
> > this will be handled.
> > Has anyone else assigned their copyrights to the
> > Foundation? Are there
> > policies about how the foundation is going to handle
> > the copyrights it
> > holds? What benefit would there be to my assigning
> > the copyright to the
> > foundation rather than just licensing it at no cost
> > for various purposes?
> >
> > As I said, I am happy to assign the copyrights to
> > the foundation, but I
> > want to be sure of what I am doing before I jump in
> > and do it, because
> > there are no "take-backs" in the world of copyright.
> >
> > - David Friedland
David, it's great to hear you are happy to do this. As far as I know,
the only copyrights assigned to the Foundation so far are those of
Jimbo and certain edits by Bomis staff. The Foundation doesn't
currently have any policies on the handling of its copyrights. I don't
know how binding making an informal assignment on the mailing list
would be; perhaps a lawyer could advise whether you need to physically
sign something.
In terms of benefits, for the Foundation, owning the copyright would
be easier than having a licence, as it means it is free to do what it
likes with the logo, rather than having any restrictions that might
cause problems later on. I'm not sure what the benefits to you are
though, other than not having to worry about writing a licence, and
not having the Foundation bothering you in years to come about whether
they can use the logo for some purpose not originally mentioned in the
licence.
Angela
(just my thoughts, not on behalf of Wikimedia)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>--- Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>> ...
>> However, it would be nice to see more frequent updates just about
>> fundraising progress, which is what this suggestion focuses on. Those
>> who are particularly interested in this should be encouraged to donate
>> the funds necessary so that we can start paying Mav a salary. Otherwise,
>> it's unfair to expect anyone to assume that burden.
>
>Actually please don't donate money for that - giving me money will not increase
>the number of hours in the day or reduce the number of hours I need to sleep
>(Wikipedia/Wikimedia is nearly a second full time job for me). Also, doing so
>would only add a small incentive for me to do more work in this area since I
>strongly suspect that such pay would pale in comparison to what I now receive
>as a GIS specialist (thus I would have to keep my day job). A full time server
>admin is far more important.
>
Sorry, I meant that to be tongue-in-cheek, not as a particularly serious
suggestion (yet). My point was mostly that if people have expectations
like that, they need to consider whether they're prepared to contribute
what's necessary to make it possible. There's only so much you can
"require" from volunteers. And I agree that for the future day when we
start hiring salaried employees, a server admin is a bigger priority.
--Michael Snow