GerardM and community
I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser.
I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html). It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas.
I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome, if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding.
Kind regards Londenp
2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Oldak Quill schreef:
On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Hello everyone.
Just for a head up (or down)
First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more
matching
donors in that fundraiser. This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
the
reaction of some members in the community.
Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures).
Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent
job.
Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !"
This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or
will
not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current
funding.
In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory.
IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal.
I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.
Hoi, Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do. An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to accommodate the growth that it could have.
I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle even more damaging.
The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes no material difference. It does not help as money would.
Thanks, GerardM
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l