The opinions may be a little raw, and though Florence and Erik may
differ significantly, they are at least open enough to let us know their
opinions without dancing about in cryptic diplomatic niceties. It would
be of benefit to hear from other board members as well.
Ec
Casey Brown wrote:
>I do agree with you, but you must recall that everyone was speaking that way
>and you are taking it out of context.
>
>Cbrown1023
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>On 19/04/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In short, claiming that we are not taking responsability, Danny, is
>>plain bullshit.
>>
>>
>
>On 19/04/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I respect your opinion, but your
>>brain seems to be pretty well programmed for fear and aggression.
>>
>>
>
>These are not appropriate ways for members of the Board of Trustees to
>react to criticism in public. I suggest you peruse WP:CIVIL, which
>will help you to respond more appropriately for a person holding your
>office.
>
>~Mark Ryan
>
I'm forwarding this on behalf of Ethan Zuckerman, a member of the
Wikimedia Advisory Board.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board#Ethan_Zuckerman
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ethan Zuckerman <ethanz(a)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 19, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Advisory Board] What do we do in the event the
Foundation fails?
To: advisory(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Angela, thanks for pointing me to this discussion. I'll respond via
you, if that's okay - I think actually subscribing to that list would
likely destroy either my workday productivity or my mail client. Do
feel free to forward.
Standard disclaimers apply - I am not a lawyer, though I hang out with
a lot of them, and I look forward to putting some of these questions
in front of people who think about trademark and intellectual property
for a living. Some of the questions implied in this thread are hard
for any lawyers to answer - very few lawyers are smart about more than
one legal system, and possible solutions to the Wikimedia survival
question probably require crossing jurisdictions.
The scenarios that worry me most don't involve interplanetary
invasion. They involve massive liability rulings in a libel/slander
suit or intractible conflict within the board of directors. In the
first case, a long process could end with a judgement that bankrupts
the Foundation entity. My guess is that a ruling would attempt to
strip Wikimedia of any money it had raised but wouldn't consider
trademark part of the Foundation's assets for settlement purposes - in
other words, Seigenthaler sues Wikimedia and wins, I think it's
unlikely that the bankruptcy courts would give Seigenthaler the
opportunity to use the Wikipedia trademark as part of the fiscal
damages. That said, Wikimedia would probably fold rather than go
through bankruptcy proceedings. The question then becomes whether a
successor entity could use the defunct Wikimedia trademarks.
One option would be to pursue a "Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe"
strategy, much as people are suggesting with the copies of the content
itself. (I think that having an agreement with Archive.org, and with
other digital archives, to periodically store snapshots of the various
wikis would be a very smart thing to do.) If the country foundations
started registering the trademarks under local law, it's possible that
a succesor foundation could license those trademarks - i.e.,
Wikimedia2, a new US 501c3 could be given permission to use the
Wikimedia marks registered under German law by the German Foundation,
for instance. A first step would be to research in what venues
Wikimedia Foundation has registered these marks and consider what
other entities we might want to ask to register marks.
In the incorporation papers for the Wikimedia 501c3, I guarantee that
there's a clause that deals with succession. Under US law, when you
fold a nonprofit, you generally need to transfer assets remaining to
another US 501c3 which has a similar mission and purpose. This last
clause can be interpreted pretty strictly - my partner and I folded a
501c3 under Massachusetts law, and we tried to transfer the remaining
assets (a few hundred dollars, and some stock) to the church we both
attend. The local government refused, on the grounds that the church
doesn't have the same social mission as our NGO - they forced us to
find a different entity, or surrender the assets to the state. One
option would be to pick an entity with a related mission which we
would try to designate as successor, perhaps archive.org, in the case
of the foundation folding. That successor might explicitly accept
control of the mark as part of a succession process. It would be very
difficult to declare a foreign NGO as successor - the US law wants the
entity to be a 501c3.
Before taking either of these concrete pieces of advice, please,
please seek the advice of a real lawyer. But I think the idea of
ensuring that lots of entities have access to the trademark might be a
clever one, though it certainly takes a lot of control of trademark
out of the foundation's hands.
-Ethan
In a message dated 4/19/2007 12:47:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Anthere9(a)yahoo.com writes:
What Danny and Kelly say are not only "criticism", they are personnal
attacks and insults. When Danny says we are not taking responsability,
it is something else. It is somehow accusing us on the legal ground.
What will happen next ? Accusations of fraud ? Accusation of theft ? Or
what ? Is there a limit ? And all we should do is smile and accept to go
on being kicked ?
I would never accuse the Board of fraud or theft. Abuse of donated funds is
another story entirely. Having a board member insist that the foundation
rent him a car so that he can go to the beach ... questionable to furthering the
goals of the foundation.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Dear all,
In the past few days, I have explored more systematically the policy
governance model, and how it could be implemented.By the way, I found a
short article about it on the english wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance
One of the things the board has to design is what is called the ENDS.
In each ends, the board defines which needs are to be met, for whom, and
at what cost.
Let me give you two examples of ends.
*******************************
The WMF is the host provider of several websites, referred to as
Wikimedia project. Wikimedia websites must be up and running
efficiently, 24/24 hours, 7 days a week. That is the priority of WMF.
Needs to be met ?
Information must be accessible anytime.
For whom ?
Any person with internet access
At what cost ?
Well, within limits reasonable with the revenue we have. If we had
figures to mention, we could say max 1 million per year.
*******************************
Another example
The WMF is the organiser of an annual conference, Wikimania.
Needs to be met ?
Both a scientific conference and a community event, Wikimania brings
together members of various Wikimedia projects in order to exchange
ideas, build relationships, and report on research and project efforts.
It also provides an opportunity for Wikimedians and the general public
alike to meet and share ideas about free and open source software, free
knowledge initiatives, and wiki projects worldwide.
For whom ?
Primarily for Wikimedians. Secondarily for the general public
At what cost ?
No cost. WMF should find sponsors to cover Wikimania costs by large.
*******************************
Now, these are two easy ends to define.
What I would like to ask you help on, is to define more ends, which
describe what you think the WMF is about. The two ends I mentionned
above a "long term" ends, they would be listed this year, and then next
year and probably the year after. Not all ends are this way. We could
also have an end valid only one year, or only 3 months.
Let us say we want a BIG technical meeting around Mediawiki to occur in
the next 6 months, it would be one END.
Or we want to produce a DVD of the english high quality content, it
could be another END.
Actually, hiring an ED could also be an end :-)
Now, before you tell me "eh, we elected you guys to think of that for
us", my answer will be "no, you elected us to represent your dreams
about WMF, and to make sure your dreams happen".
So, what I am currently asking you is
"What do you want Wikimedia Foundation to focus its attention on in the
next few months, few years or more".
Whether you are members on the "paper" (bylaws) or not, morally, you are
the owners of the organization. I do not think the editors represent the
only owners, but the editors definitly are part of the owners. So, I ask
you your opinion as owners.
What do you think we should achieve ? If you had 5 points to list, what
would they be ?
ant
Some people have commented about my comments. I wish to explain myself, and
I will start with a few assumptions.
1. Wikimedia is big, and it is growing, beyond what anyone ever imagined.
2. Our greatest asset is our brand, and the reputation for quality that goes
along with it. People trust us.
3. Growth requires money requires trust. Trust leads to money leads to
growth.
4. The world is watching us. Some people even want us to fail.
5. Long term sustainability should be a mantra for the Board and for
everyone else involved in fundraising.
Having said all that, I think that Florence asked some interesting
questions. I am pleased that the Foundation still values community input. That we can
rival Amazon or Ebay, and still encourage input from our community is
commendable.
But the Wikimedia Foundation is also a business, hence the name Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. It is a not for profit, but that still means it is a
business--just that there are no shareholders, and instead of measuring our success in
dollars (or euros or yen), we measure it in free content for the world. We
are a vast internet business, and Florence, our CEO, is roughly the equivalent
of the CEO of Amazon, of Ebay, or Google.
And I wonder what would happen to Amazon, Ebay, or Google if their CEO would
ask on a public mailing list, "So, how do you think we should run this
thing?"
I, for one, would sell my stock ... cheap.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
I have created a bid for London for the 2008 Wikimania, I think it
might be a little too late (since all the other bids were in by
January), however help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Robert.
http://roberthl.allhyper.com
Effective error management is part of an effective risk management strategy. Appropriate handling of errors and the public relations problems they present reduces risk of litigation. It was not my intention to steal your thunder though. Just to point at a neglected area.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: GerardM [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 08:14 AM
>To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Risks
>
>Hoi,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Error_management is a nice essay. It
>addresses different things entirely from the ones that I describe. What I
>have written about is on an organisation level where your essay writes about
>things on a project ie Wikipedia level.
>
>Yes I have read the essay. How is it relevant in the context of the original
>post ?
>
>Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>On 4/19/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> Only a partial answer, many other aspects are in operation, but please
>> consider thinking about
>>
>> Wikipedia:Error management
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 01:46 AM
>> >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>> >Subject: [Foundation-l] Risks
>> >
>> >Hoi,
>> >Risk management is an activity that has a forerunner. This is risk
>> >analysis. From everything I understand from what is happening, the
>> >situation in the management and operations of the WMF is fluid. Many
>> >aspects of risk aversion are hard or impossible to do because they are
>> >like shooting at a moving target. When you engage in risk management, it
>> >is like many other aspects of security; something you have to integrate
>> >it into your organisational operations to do it well. Risk assessment
>> >and analysis should be part of the implementation of and the changes to
>> >procedures.
>> >
>> >The question: "Who is willing to take responsibility?" is imho not
>> >necessarily valid at this time. Risk management is an essential part of
>> >the whole management and operations set up and consequently the
>> >responsibility remains with every manager for the security issues in
>> >his domain. When you have a security officer in your organisation, in
>> >essence all he can do is coordinate and integrate the efforts in all
>> >domains and coordinate and monitor how well relevant issues are handled.
>> >As security is often seen as key to the health of the organisation, the
>> >security officer is necessarily a senior manager in an organisation. It
>> >is important to note that many of the tasks that need to be done in the
>> >WMF are not filled in. This is a consequence of the seriously
>> >underfunded and understaffed organisation that is the WMF. The question
>> >is, is it more important to get the base work done or is having someone
>> >tasked for security the priority. This is a management question and
>> >decision.
>> >
>> >When an organisation takes security serious, the risk factors are taken
>> >serious. This already happens. Brion has stated repeatedly that the
>> >quality of the back-ups has a high priority for him. He has reported
>> >repeatedly on improvements made in order to improve its quality. David
>> >Gerard has raised the quality of back-ups as an issue, Jeff Merkey
>> >indicated his ability and effort in order to ensure that an off-site
>> >back-up exists. All this happens against this background of continually
>> >improving WMF functionality. Clearly risks in this domain are managed
>> >though not necessarily covered perfectly.
>> >
>> >When it comes to financial risks, the WMF will only get grants, funding
>> >from other parties when it is able and willing to go into a dialogue
>> >with organisations and people that indicate they are willing to
>> >contribute / cooperate / collaborate with our organisation. This means
>> >that our organisation has to be willing to go into a dialogue. It starts
>> >with a willingness to listen. There are indications that this is
>> improving.
>> >
>> >Given the relevance of the Wikimedia Foundation, there are many
>> >organisations that are really keen to work together with us. Many of
>> >these organisations have a wealth of data and money that they are
>> >investing in activities that are complementary to what we do. By
>> >collaborating, there is the potential that much of these resources will
>> >be directed to Free information and resources. It may mean that things
>> >do not happen in our projects. Our aim is to bring information to the
>> >world, we serve our aim when we make this happen. For Free information
>> >the one thing that really matters is that these resources are relevant
>> >and easy to reach. Organisations want to collaborate with the WMF
>> >because increased traffic for the information they care for is often
>> >what they want to get out of such a collaboration. The opportunities are
>> >there, one risk is that we are not able or willing to reach out, another
>> >is that our community is too inward focused and consequently not willing
>> >or able to collaborate.
>> >
>> >To me security and risk management are really important. The work done
>> >that is in front of us needs to get done. Anthere indicated that issues
>> >identified by the board have to be solved within specified time frames
>> >by the executive. This is only feasible when the means to do this exist.
>> >When the penalty for not finishing in time has the potential of
>> >dismissal, it means that the risks become personal as well as
>> >organisational. The consequence will be that day to day issues will
>> >suffer and this will bring its own risks.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >foundation-l mailing list
>> >foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
In a message dated 4/19/2007 10:28:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik(a)wikimedia.org writes:
You did indeed! We worked well together on this project, I think, and
it has been completed in a timely fashion thanks to the two developers
who worked on it, Purodha Blissenbach and Tim Starling, as well as
advice from Greg Maxwell and coordination by Carolyn.
I agree whole-heartedly, and will even say that I enjoyed working with you
and the others on this.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 4/19/2007 7:28:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik(a)wikimedia.org writes:
1) The Wikimedia Foundation is, today, in a better financial position
than it ever was. In addition to having held the most successful
fundraiser in its history, we already have commitments for coming
ones, and have had some in-depth discussions about new strategies to
explore. WMF has successfully negotiated several contracts about data
feeds (another source of income), and completed a development contract
for mobile phone access. The financial sustainability of the
organization is not at risk.
Sorry, Erik. It just doesnt hold water. This fundraiser was 1 million
dollars. The last was four hundred thousand dollars. A nice increase but ....
386,000 came from a single anonymous donor. 60,000 came from Virgin. In
other words, c. 450,000 of that came from two large donors. User donations then
came to c. 550,000. In other words, an increase of about 30 percent from the
last fundraiser. How much did traffic increase in that time? Was it also 30
percent or closer to 300 percent?
As for mobile phone access and data feed negotiations, give credit where
credit is due. Hmm, I think I played the key role in much of that.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Only a partial answer, many other aspects are in operation, but please consider thinking about
Wikipedia:Error management
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 01:46 AM
>To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Risks
>
>Hoi,
>Risk management is an activity that has a forerunner. This is risk
>analysis. From everything I understand from what is happening, the
>situation in the management and operations of the WMF is fluid. Many
>aspects of risk aversion are hard or impossible to do because they are
>like shooting at a moving target. When you engage in risk management, it
>is like many other aspects of security; something you have to integrate
>it into your organisational operations to do it well. Risk assessment
>and analysis should be part of the implementation of and the changes to
>procedures.
>
>The question: "Who is willing to take responsibility?" is imho not
>necessarily valid at this time. Risk management is an essential part of
>the whole management and operations set up and consequently the
>responsibility remains with every manager for the security issues in
>his domain. When you have a security officer in your organisation, in
>essence all he can do is coordinate and integrate the efforts in all
>domains and coordinate and monitor how well relevant issues are handled.
>As security is often seen as key to the health of the organisation, the
>security officer is necessarily a senior manager in an organisation. It
>is important to note that many of the tasks that need to be done in the
>WMF are not filled in. This is a consequence of the seriously
>underfunded and understaffed organisation that is the WMF. The question
>is, is it more important to get the base work done or is having someone
>tasked for security the priority. This is a management question and
>decision.
>
>When an organisation takes security serious, the risk factors are taken
>serious. This already happens. Brion has stated repeatedly that the
>quality of the back-ups has a high priority for him. He has reported
>repeatedly on improvements made in order to improve its quality. David
>Gerard has raised the quality of back-ups as an issue, Jeff Merkey
>indicated his ability and effort in order to ensure that an off-site
>back-up exists. All this happens against this background of continually
>improving WMF functionality. Clearly risks in this domain are managed
>though not necessarily covered perfectly.
>
>When it comes to financial risks, the WMF will only get grants, funding
>from other parties when it is able and willing to go into a dialogue
>with organisations and people that indicate they are willing to
>contribute / cooperate / collaborate with our organisation. This means
>that our organisation has to be willing to go into a dialogue. It starts
>with a willingness to listen. There are indications that this is improving.
>
>Given the relevance of the Wikimedia Foundation, there are many
>organisations that are really keen to work together with us. Many of
>these organisations have a wealth of data and money that they are
>investing in activities that are complementary to what we do. By
>collaborating, there is the potential that much of these resources will
>be directed to Free information and resources. It may mean that things
>do not happen in our projects. Our aim is to bring information to the
>world, we serve our aim when we make this happen. For Free information
>the one thing that really matters is that these resources are relevant
>and easy to reach. Organisations want to collaborate with the WMF
>because increased traffic for the information they care for is often
>what they want to get out of such a collaboration. The opportunities are
>there, one risk is that we are not able or willing to reach out, another
>is that our community is too inward focused and consequently not willing
>or able to collaborate.
>
>To me security and risk management are really important. The work done
>that is in front of us needs to get done. Anthere indicated that issues
>identified by the board have to be solved within specified time frames
>by the executive. This is only feasible when the means to do this exist.
>When the penalty for not finishing in time has the potential of
>dismissal, it means that the risks become personal as well as
>organisational. The consequence will be that day to day issues will
>suffer and this will bring its own risks.
>
>Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>