>This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since
>someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are
>most definitely not models to emulate. A great many non-profit
>organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt,
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their
actual >stated mission.

>-Mark


I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

---------------------------------

Oh, and... I forgot :-)
Angela feels very strongly about this. And it is important to the board not to do anything that might be highly upset some people. So, Angela will not come to Paris on the Foundation funds if the great majority of participants think it wrong.
However, from irc discussion, I perceive most participants think covering costs is acceptable.

Since this is the first board, nearly everything is to build to make it work properly and efficiently. Angel and I will do the best we can, but only with your help. Obviously, building a good financial basis is the first step. I'd like to remind people to comment and give feedback on the various starting points on meta (see the goings-on for a list of topics).

I think we should keep in mind the goals of the Foundation, which are to support the development of the various projects, as well as the distribution and the use of the accumulated knowledge. "Support" is also about finding funds for the project to work, and this requires to go look where the funds are available (not only to discuss on irc). "Support" is also about meeting with publishers and consider printing options (and this is not only done via email). "Support" is also about making the project known (and this is not only done through the wiki itself). Perhaps "support" is also about lobbying here and there for copyright issues :-)
It is very likely that "support" of development also goes through supporting meetings of tech people, perhaps professional training of the tech team, perhaps paying someone for the maintenance of our server farm. It is also likely that support of the project will require one day paying someone to defend us from a legal perspective, or an accountant when it becomes a full time job.

We are not here yet :-)

But I think most non-profit organization are working at the same time with volunteers and paid staff. They could not function without the volunteers, but they also need the paid staff to guarantee a certain level of professionalism when the organisation gets very big. Does that mean paying people is a waste of money, and that it is not useful to the actual mission ? I do not think so. When a financial officer is spending 8 hours a day taking care of accounting, placing money wisely so to make the best of the resources, I think it is not a loss of money to pay him, and it is more useful to the actual mission than to have no idea of how much money is available, not having a decent budget which allow planification, or just letting bills accumulate to the point of having legal troubles. Of course, we can hope to rely on volunteers to do this as long as possible, but to be honest, I would not expect a volunteer to do that full time for a long time.

Though, just as many of you here, the number of hours I spend on wiki is not far from being a full time already :-)

Is this too premature to talk about it ?
Perhaps
Or perhaps is it planification, long term vision ?

I understand you are worried about lack of efficiency, waste and corruption. It may interest you to know that Dannyisme added to possible official positions, the possibility of having an ombudsman. I personally think it is premature right now, but well....
You are welcome to comment on this anyway.

In any case, stay assured we won't do things community will be strongly opposed to.

Ant