--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)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