--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
.... Face-to-face meetings are much more productive than IRC simply because real human interaction has a much higher bandwidth than letters in a window on a computer screen. That was obvious at the WOS in Berlin, as I know that some people are still reeling from the whole experience. ;-) Getting Angela to mingle with the French Wikimedia community will benefit the whole project.
I totally agree with this. Especially at this point it is very important to create ties among various Wikimedians. Yes this is in part socializing, but that is *vitally* important when forming (or keeping together) any organization. It is absurd and dangerous to just discount that as a "perk."
Also, I forgot the exact percentage, but more than half of all human communication is from body language and verbal patterns/tone so we cannot only depend on web-based communication. A mix is needed (esp for the trustees). Paying travel expenses for quarterly meetings seems to be most reasonable. Each quarterly meeting could be hosted by a different Wikimedia chapter from a different part of the world - thus forming a strong tie between the foundation and its chapters. Meetings in-between quarterly ones can be conducted via less expensive means.
.... I do believe that funds which were not explicitly designated for the purpose of funding foundation organizational activity should not be permanently used for said purpose. So what we should do is clarify on the donations page how much of the money is going to be used for which purpose.
What we need is a budget that spells this out. A link could then be provided for those interested in how the foundation plans to spend their donation money.
But we will soon get a check over 10,000 euros from the Prix Ars Electronica award, and that money can be designated by the trustees for various purposes, and a certain amount of it (say 2000 euros) should certainly be designated for organization expenses. Temporarily withdrawing the necessary funds from a non-designated pool until we get the check is not a serious issue.
Exactly - those funds can be used for travel, special projects, and software bounties.
... I do not yet have a final answer to this question. For the experiment phase, I think appointing one developer and one technically-minded non- developer who have to reach consensus would be a simple solution. I would like to nominate Tim Starling and Daniel Mayer for these two roles. If Tim doesn't want to do it, I would suggest Jens Frank, who has already said that he wants to leave bounty tasks to others, so he would have a certain level of objectivity.
Nod. I'll accept if asked by the board to do this. But, IMO, this should be part of an official Wikimedia committee so a trustee will have to be a member as well. Angela seems to be the obvious choice.
... Regarding Erik Zachte's remark that $100 is not a lot of money, that is of course correct. However, the purpose of this system is not so much to give participating developers a salary, but to provide a little extra incentive for completing tasks which we all agree need to be done, but which have been largely ignored for months. We can always raise the bounties if it turns out that they are ineffective. $15/hour seems like a reasonable starting value. I know Java programmers who work for less than that.
The amount of money is not as important as the recognition that the winner accomplished the task - IMO. The award is more than just some cash. But the cash is still a tangible thing and thus adds a great deal of 'realness' to the award (however "nominal" 100 bucks may be - in India that is two weeks wages for a tech support rep while in the U.S. it is a days wages for the same work). A page tracking who brought in what bounties would be a good way to encourage use of the system.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail