Hi Gerard,
My email is not to criticise the decision WMUK made to send more than the
majority of chapters, but to make my view (as I was asked off list my
view, and I think given the discussion it was worth sharing on-list) that
regardless of whether the funds a chapter or organisation has at it's
disposable are infinitely small or infinitely limitless, the same thought
process should be gone through when planning expenditure. Spend each $1,000
like it's your last, essentially, consider if what it's planned to be spent
on is the best value, and whether there would be more value in spending it
on another project/item. When thats the case, then consider whether the
original proposed spending is worth it.
I recognise this hardly a universal view, nor do I expect others to replace
their view with mine. It's not my place to question the actions of board
members of other chapters, nor will I do so, but like others I felt that
now was an appropriate time to convey my point of view on spending in
general, and I have now done so.
Looking forward to seeing all of you in Berlin :)
Steve
On 2 April 2014 21:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
There is a big difference between being frugal and being effective. There
is no point to underspend when it affects effectivity in a negative manner.
Yes, it is important that people are mindful of the sources of the money
involved. This is as important for us as it is for a government where the
donations are not given voluntary. More important as it is hardly possible
to get an accounting from "civil" servants and we rely every year on
donations.
When one chapter has a budget and a plan, it is for them to exercise that
plan. When another chapter or people in another chapter disagree, they can
say so. However, the argument for a large delegation has been made. One
really important fact is that some people do not benefit from going to
conferences. They do not make the connections, they do not get the point.
When people know this applies to them, it is an excellent argument for them
not to go.
My experience is that going to conferences can be really effective. There
are opportunities that are hard to get in any other setting. My experience
is that people tend to be more approachable, more humane when I have met
them. It really helps me in what I do.
Now Steve, why not address this. This is why money will be spend. It is
realistic, effective and particularly for a new team a great opportunity to
get to know people. My mum would applaud money spend effectively.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 2 April 2014 12:10, Steve Zhang <cro0016(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't
necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or
Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe
that funds received through the APG process or from money received
through
current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still
donor money
, and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters
, and
as a result
we need to respect that when spending our
their
money.
Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people.
When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a
good friend of mine
reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel
about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be
frugal with the funds
that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the
proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we
as
chapters already have can help or hinder future
requests for funds, and
this is something I consider before signing off on a project or
expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this
-
but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be
adhered to by all, and
would
wonder what value there is in sending more than
this along to the
conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large
chapters
with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller
chapters at a
disadvantage
or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will
mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I
would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going
forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia
On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" <itzik(a)infra.co.il> wrote:
> Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right,
engagement
on other
topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the
right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent
more
> then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education
Meeting,
but the
left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know
why
this has been changed, and why no one notify or
discussed about it
before.
> I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we
> asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of
> number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we
decided
to
select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that
last years WMDE's staff
and
> board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for,
and
asking to
minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the
conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the
program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or
willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo
we
> been used to since the beginning so secretly.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber(a)wikimedia.de
> >wrote:
>
> > I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some
> > activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit
that
> > I would have really loved to see more
engagement on topics like
> > conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding
> > programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the
same
> > discussions on rules and logistics like
every year before.
> >
> > There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or
> > volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most
importantly,
> > to start discussing and taking position
towards the conference topics
> > on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
> >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
> >
> > Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We
> > have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political
> > discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
> >
> > I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
> >
> > Best,
> > Nicole
> >
> > On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Hoi,
> > > Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they
see
> > fit.
> > > The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license
for
> > everyone
> > > to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best
> > > expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
> > implicit
> > > condemnations.
> > >
> > > Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that
as
a
> > > former chair it is best for the
new team to move in its own
direction
and
> > not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is
not
> > > controversial.
> > >
> > > When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the
> > > formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when
that
> > gets
> > > the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere
> else
> > in
> > > "the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not
justify the
current
> >
criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large
> > delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste
money
by
> > sending people to a conference, why is that".
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > Op 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <
russavia.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
> >:
> > >
> > >> Gerard, et al
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > >> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if
they
>
>> > spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to
question
> > this
> > >> > at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Might I make a point here.
> > >>
> > >> It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors --
i.e.
the
> > general
> > >> public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help
to
>> survive.
>>
>> The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to
waste
> >> money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
> demonstrated
> >> last year by
> >>
http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and
> >>
http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
> >>
> >> The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds
is
> >> committed and spent. The place is
unimportant, but here is as good
as
> > any.
> > >>
> > >> As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask
such
> > questions,
> > >> and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such
questions
> > >> without snide remarks such as
"Really Fae, as you are no longer
the
>
chair,
> >> why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him .
Unfortunately,
there
> is a
> >> tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised,
for a
> > >> committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with
snide
>
>> attacks.
> >>
> >> Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is
only
> fair
> >> that they answer them.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Russavia
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
_______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Leiterin Internationales
> > Head of International Affairs
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
> >
> >
http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des
Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>