A number of you told me, offlist and on, that you liked getting the last
report I posted here. So, I will continue :-)
---
Weeks of: February 1– February 29, 2008
Prepared by: Sue Gardner
Prepared for: Wikimedia Board of Trustees
MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
1. Development of fundraising strategy emphasizing major donors and
foundations
2. Continuation of major donor cultivation initiatives already underway
3. Goal setting for final two quarters of FY 07-08
4. Investigation of grant-giving and funding opportunities from
philanthropic foundations
5. Establishment of new SF headquarters, including ongoing orientation
of new staff
RECENT WEEKS
ST. PETERSBURG CLOSES
On January 31, the Wikimedia Foundation's office in St. Petersburg was
closed. Oleta McHenry continues as our accountant there until March 31,
and Rob Halsell continues as server tech out of Tampa. We're enormously
grateful to Barbara Brown (office manager), Sandy Ordonez (head of
communications) and Vishal Patel (business development), who have now
wrapped up their paid employment with the Foundation.
NEW CFOO STARTS
On February 4, Véronique Kessler started as Wikimedia's new CFOO.
Véronique is a CPA who comes to us with more than 15 years of
managerial/financial experience with a wide variety of organizations,
including the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, Stanford
University, brokerage firm Charles Schwab, the venture capital and
investment firm Berkeley International Capital Corporation, the Walden
International Investment Group, The Fremont Group, Wells Fargo bank, and
Deloitte & Touche.
NEW STAFF ARE ORIENTED
On February 11 and 12, a staff retreat was held in the new San Francisco
office. Its purpose was to provide the new staff with a basic
orientation to the Wikimedia Foundation, and to introduce them to each
other and start building the team. The agenda included a walkthrough of
the Wikimedia Foundation's vision, mission, values and goals, an MBTI
exercise, collaborative development of an organizational timeline, a
review of the org chart and discussions about roles and
responsibilities, and a “big picture” presentation from me laying out a
mini-SWOT plus organizational goals. Pat Hughes developed the agenda and
facilitated the retreat: in attendance were Véronique Kessler, Jay
Walsh, Cheryl Owens, Erica Ortega, Mike Godwin, Cary Bass, Erik Möller
and me.
Establishment of the San Francisco office continues. A new healthcare
insurance provider is in the works, replacing the one we used in St.
Pete. We have business cards. The conference rooms are fully set up, and
we have whiteboards, a lounge, working phones, a small kitchen, and a
not-yet-working refrigerator :-) The Wiki Wall competition has
concluded, with nine photos of Wikimedians now prominently on display.
We've established the Wikimedia corkboard featuring dozens of photos
from Wikimedia events around the world, and have set up monitors
featuring information displays for visitors (e.g., real-time recent
changes from IRC, the László Kozma near-real-time-changes map, etc.).
Our library's growing and O'Reilly has sent us more copies of
“Wikipedia: The Missing Manuals” to give to visitors :-)
GOALS-SETTING BEGINS
During the last two weeks of February, we began developing staff goals
covering the latter half of this fiscal year: January 1 to June 30.
Because this is our first-ever attempt to create goals and track
progress, it will doubtless be a clunky and imperfect process: we'll
refine it as we go, and do better next time. We're doing this because
publicly/visibly setting goals is a way to have a conversation about
where we're headed as an organization and what's important to us.
Usually, 80% of goal-setting will be obvious and straightforward
documentation of what we already know, and 20% will be more serious,
substantive conversation about where we're headed.
These are our overall goals so far: they're a work-in-progress :-)
* Achieve organizational maturity
* Achieve financial sustainability
* Increase quality and perception of quality
* Increase distribution beyond the wikis (e.g., DVDs, USB sticks, books,
etc,)
* Encourage and broaden participation (e.g., Wikipedia Academy)
FUNDRAISING INITIATIVES UNDERWAY
We have just engaged a Bay Area firm to help us develop a fundraising
strategy. That will take place over the next few weeks, and I expect
will result in us allocating the majority of our energy to major donor
identification and cultivation, with a lesser emphasis on foundations
and “minor donor” efforts. Obviously there's quite a bit of major donor
work already underway, and it won't be held up by this process. We've
also brought in a contractor to help with the donor cultivation process
over the coming months.
On March 4, the Foundation staged its first ever social event in the new
San Francisco office – a two-hour networking party intended to cultivate
potential supporters. Jimmy and I gave short speeches, and the rest of
the evening was spent in informal small group conversations. Upshot: The
event was well-executed (thanks Jay!), and we learned a lot, including
fine-tuning some of our ideas about major donor cultivation. We got a
few immediate small offers to help, and we hope we've stimulated
conversations that will lead to more support down the road. We will be
staging more of these in future, probably 4-6 annually.
PARTNERSHIPS
In the absence of a head of partnerships, we've focused our energy on a
small number of potential large scale institutional partnerships; these
initiatives are ongoing, and will likely not produce results for several
months.
NEW STAFF RECRUITED
During the last week of February, we've been interviewing candidates for
an open software developer / IT support position. The successful
candidate will be announced within a few weeks. We have also been
interviewing accountants, and that person will be announced soon also.
TECHNOLOGY
(At this time, the monthly report only covers work done by paid staff,
and a lot of technology work is done by volunteers. A good way to track
key technical changes is to read the Wikipedia Signpost's weekly
“B.R.I.O.N.” report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost.)
The FlaggedRevs extension, chiefly developed by Aaron Schulz who was
contracted by the Foundation last year, has been approved for initial
test deployment on two experimental wikis; these are expected to go live
shortly. Erik, Philipp Birken and Luca de Alfaro met to discuss the
future of the extension and other quality initatives.
A security vulnerability in Squid was fixed. A feature to hide
maintenance categories was implemented. Red links are now annotated as
“not yet written.” Various bugs and inconsistencies fixed.
We've begun inventorizing all equipment in the SF office.
ALSO
* The audited 2006-07 financial statements have been publicly released.
* The credit card usage policy was approved by the board.
* The 2007-08 financial statements were released to the board and
published on the Foundation website.
* Mike has revised some important legal agreements.
IN COMING WEEKS
* We continue to explore consortium options in Amsterdam. Mark and Erik
meet with Kennisnet March 11 and 13.
* Erik and Mike continue work on the license migration issue with
Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation.
* Véronique will develop a payout process for the Greenspun illustration
project.
* Brion will test the wiki-to-print technology developed for us by
PediaPress.
* Erik will begin coordinating strategy development around domain name
management.
* The board will have its first meeting in San Francisco in early April.
* The board has asked me to take up the treasurer search. I have asked
Erik to coordinate the search process.
* The board has asked me to review the Wikimania security issues. I've
asked Mike to commission a routine conference site assessment from a
professional firm, with a special focus on issues facing LGBT
participants, and within the context of us being an organization that's
highly-visible and not uncontroversial (e.g., Muhammad pictures, etc.).
We'll ask for an overall threat assessment, as well as a set of
recommendations on how to best reduce risk. I'll report progress to the
board in April.
* The board has asked for a proposed data retention policy. Mike is
working on this with Brion and Tim Pozar, a computer scientist and
privacy expert. It will be delivered to the board at their April meeting.
* We are planning a party welcoming ourselves to San Francisco; targeted
for April.
* Fundraising strategy will be finalized by end of March; meanwhile,
major donor cultivation efforts continue, and we begin to explore
opportunities with foundations.
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > If they're really suing people over using other numberings, then I,
> > and I suspect many others, shall just have acquired a new hobby. The
> > Scientologists have lost anyway.
> Oh, if they're doing that, fuck 'em.
Precisely ;-) One would hope they would not be that, ah, suicidally
stupid. That sort of behviour tends to rouse the ire of people who
previously didn't care.
- d.
On 08/03/2008, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> of CAS numbers. But CAS has sued -- and I think successfully --
> to discourage this, claiming either that they own the idea of a
> single master database of unique identifiers for chemical
> compounds, or that having a competing set of identifiers would
> sow confusion.
OH REALLY.
Yeah, I can see that playing well when publicised.
> Whatever the legality of the situation, I'm betting Wikipedia
> isn't the first information service to have incurred CAS's wrath.
We haven't actually incurred their *wrath* as such.
But if they've actually sued people to try to maintain a monopoly on
the *idea* of numerical identifiers, I think they've just incurred
ours. Do you have details or pointers to such?
- d.
It's not only the problem about LGBT issues.
There is also the risk (small, indeed... but maybe not non-existent) related to
fundamentalism positions or violent reactions against WM about the notable
"pictures of Muhammad" issue, or some other "religious-sensibile issues".
A sound security assessment in advance, related to these types of "risks", would
be useful.
For these types of assessments, I could suggest Control Risk Group:
http://www.control-risks.com/default.aspx
T.
> The understanding that I have is that there is going to be a further
> investigation done by Mike with a specific focus on LGBT Wikipedians
> and any risks associated with that.
Casey is right here. What I posted simply represented my initial fact-
gathering. We are actively looking for a professional threat-
assessment firm to consult regarding the full range of possible
threats we might have to deal with in holding and attending the
conference. (I'd like to ask the community to forward any
recommendations they have to me -- any feedback at all would be useful.)
Andrew is right to think that the issue of homosexual orientation and/
or conduct needs to be considered. What I've uncovered so far
suggests that gay men and women who are not engaging in homosexual
conduct in a way that confronts the sensibilities of a fairly
conservative (though officially secular) Muslim culture should have no
worries. (Similarly, you probably shouldn't be drinking alcohol in
the street either.) I'm trying to get more specific guidelines,
however.
--Mike
Gerard, I was questioning Mr. Godwin's statement that the " decision about
locating Wikimania was *not*
made by me or by the Wikimedia Foundation." I
Like you, I understand the participants as being part of the Wikimedia
Foundation.
Danny
In a message dated 3/6/2008 4:56:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com writes:
Dear Danny,
All people that were on the jury are associated with the Wikimedia
Foundation in one way or other. That makes it 100%. In the end everyone who
is willing and contributes positively to the running of the WMF can be
considered part of our community..
So what is your point again?
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:40 PM, <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2008 2:12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org writes:
>
> Please understand that the decision about locating Wikimania was not
> made by me or by the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
> _http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Jury_
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Jury)
>
> I don't quite understand. Of 14 jury members, three are on the board, two
> are on the advisory board, and Sue is ED (6 total: 42 percent) . Others
> represent chapters and community coordination. Can you please explain who
> you mean
> by Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> D
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Hi folks,
Several weeks ago we posted our first mid-year financial statements on
the Foundation wiki. A few questions have come in, on-list since then.
One referred to depreciation of furniture/equipment and the other to
the 'employee receivables' line.
I've updated the related FAQ at:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance/July07_Nov07_Mid-year_FAQ
Thanks,
--
Jay Walsh
Head of Communications
WikimediaFoundation.org
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 609
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> > <quote>
> >
> > *In an interview with The Associated Press, Florence Devouard, who chairs
> > the Wikimedia Foundation, defended Wales and said he had simply been "slow
> > in submitting receipts." She pointed out that the foundation rejected the
> > steakhouse expense.*
> >
> > *A short time later, in an e-mail exchange with her fellow board members,
> > Devouard reported that she had persuaded the AP that "the money story was a
> > no story." Yet she proceeded to indicate the opposite, upbraiding Wales for
> > having asked the foundation to pay the steakhouse tab.*
> >
> > *"I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the
> > past," she wrote to Wales in the message, which was obtained by the AP. "Get
> > a grip!"*
> >
> > </quote>
> > True?
> >
> > Nathan
>
> Yeah. The first quote comes from a direct discussion I had with the
> journalist. The two other quotes were taken from two different emails
> sent to the comcom list.
>
> The comcom list is supposingly an internal list to deal with
> communication issues. A *private* and *confidential* list.
> Unfortunately, some members of that list (and I have no idea who) are
> also leaking information. It also happened on internal-l some time ago
> (again, no idea who is the author of the leak).
>
> We are currently in an odd situation. I wish from all my heart that we
> be transparent as much as possible. But for all the transparency in the
> world, there are stuff that is just internal discussion, cases where we
> need to discuss openly without the fear that it will make the headlines
> the next day. Unfortunately, there is now no way we can be certain that
> a discussion we have anywhere, be it irc, email or phone, will not be
> leaked.
>
> These are very sad times.
>
I'm sorry Florence, but if this issue had been brought into the open
*nearly two years ago* when *I* first started hearing the rumors (so a
lot of people must have already known about it by then), this would
have been taken care of then and wouldn't have even made any headlines
(maybe Slashdot, but not the Associated Press, anyway). Instead, the
board and staff chose to try to cover things up, and now you've all
dug yourself a very deep hole.
You're right about one thing: "there is now no way we can be certain
that a discussion we have anywhere, be it irc, email or phone, will
not be leaked". Of course, that's something that has always been
true. That's why you don't lie to reporters and to the public. And
that's why you admit problems before they snowball out of hand.
I'm posting this to foundation-l, both because it's more on topic here
and because I'm on moderation on wikien-l. I was put on moderation
there by David Gerard for urging you, on that list, to come out with
this story before Danny. Had you listened to me then you could have
at least gotten your spin out ahead of time. I even suggested the
spin: "they did, but then they got caught and now they've stopped" --
& provide detailed evidence that this is the case.
Believe it or not, my suggestion was made because I felt that it would
be in all of our interests if you followed it. And I second the
suggestion today. This story still hasn't completely broken - I
suggest you get it out into the open sooner rather than later.
Anthony
In a message dated 3/6/2008 11:10:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
Here's a list of the things that Jimmy donated that day. I bolded what I
No, that is what Bomis donated. Jimmy was CEO. He drew a salary. His wife
drew a salary.
Sue is CEO of Wikimedia. She draws a salary.
In both cases, they are responsible to others.
Nuff said.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)