sannse wrote:
>Excellent idea!
>
>I find all these discussion really ridicoulous and I also think that
>it is important that Angela can meet Anthere and Jimbo at Paris.
>
>I offer 50EUR to the fondation to cover her travel if she attend the meet
>and without other condition :-)
>
I think the discussion mixes two aspects which should be separted for
transparancy:
1) the problem that successful developing organisations their elected
management usually gets apart from the broad mass of the community. This
might either be an informal process or a process due to formal
organisational structures like forming a board of a foundation. I
suppose this will not yet happen with the current members elected which
come from the roots of Wikipedia. But what will be with future
generations of board members? Usally special people get attracted by
such formal structures and are keen to get elected - as you can see in
many parties, foundations etc. worldwide. So its a kind of law that over
time the danger grows that bureaucratic structures develop and the gap
between management and the community widens more and more. It therefore
seems important to establish the most open communication rules and
transparancy to prevent such typical developments. I assume, that the
discussion about funding travel costs of board members here is just
taken as an example as a future take off by elected board members from
the basic community is feared.
2) The funding of travel costs itself. May be it could be helpful if
all people intending to give donations are given options for which
purpose they can donate - just place such options on the donation web
pages and explain them. The total amount of donations received is
usually much greater if donators can choose personally for what purpose
their donation shall be used for. One of the options could then be the
funding of travel costs. I think this would be the most open approach
towards donators. At the same time budgets and aims for donations must
be openly argued for and published. Furthermore internal discussions
about justifications why what money for what purpose shall be used can
be avoided. If nobody donates for a purpose proposed - just let it be.
Presenting the donation community the needs for funding by options is
the fairest approach, its their money Wikipedia uses. And letting the
donators decide about how their money shall be spent, you can be sure
that they are willing to spend much more in total cash. By this
Wikipedia will have the greatest benefit possible.
Dietrich
hase(a)akademie.de