In a message dated 6/18/2005 9:38:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de writes:
Hello Danny,
earmarking is something I generally support, with some caveats. My main
concern is that not everything we *should* do will necessarily be
directly funded by the community. This is especially true for
bootstrapping investments that benefit projects that currently don't
have a large supporting community yet. So I suggest that beyond overhead
costs, a substantial amount of money of every donation is also allocated
to a general bootstrapping fund to be used at the Foundation's discretion.
Hi Erik
I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I
mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover
operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in
addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore, this
is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the
subject of a second email in a day or two.
As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based
on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants,
though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a
compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where they
want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know that at
least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some concern.
Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would like to
hear what other people say as well.
It could be split into different (broad) areas, e.g.:
Bootstrap - Documentation: $5K
Bootstrap - Development: $5K
I think that operational costs should take top priority. There's not
much point in asking people to fund development if we can't afford to
keep the servers running. So during a fundraising drive, only after our
goal is met, the "slots" for targeted donations should be opened. This
might also add some excitement to the drive.
I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think this
will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to
grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can hope
to cover.
My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this, we need
to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with that,
though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some
time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of
its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source
development and free content. But that's very long term thinking (years).
Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications.
Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some
funding for Wikimania.
Danny
Best,
Erik