Delirium wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I know that the Wikimedia is currently strapped for cash. However, I would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia work. For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband connection should be covered by the Foundation as well.
While every participant is doing their work on Wikipedia and the other projects voluntarily, Ant and Angela are expected to represent us, the users. We should make it as easy for them as possible.
I wouldn't consider this a high priority---certainly far below buying servers, which we already don't have enough money to buy.
I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue Mark :-)
Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank. I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400 dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000 euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.
That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).
JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year. You may find it here : http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars
We naturally have also to plan for contingencies.
So, I would not say that we do not have *enough* money to buy servers. The problem might be somewhere else.
I would say that we should plan a fund raising time in fall. It will be necessary. But saying we do not have enough money right now is just plain incorrect.
Unless we
find ourselves in a situation where we have so much cash we don't have any place it could better be spent, I think a better approach would be to simply use email to communicate like everyone else does. As for internet connections, I assume anyone involved in the project already has one (how else would they be Wikipedians, given that this is primarily an internet-based project?).
-Mark
Yes. You are correct. But perhaps a board member is not only in touch with wikipedians, but also with the outside world. And though I tried to suggest a couple of journalists to connect to irc or only use emails, I really do not understand why they strongly insist on phone meeting or better, face to face meetings :-).... Same goes for meetings where Wikipedia is presented. Very curious :-)
Adding a qualification to this: I wouldn't be opposed to voluntary donations by people who feel strongly about this. If there are expenses that are turning out to be problematic, there could be a fund-raising campaign to provide funding for the board members. But this should come out of specific donations for that purpose: people should know they're donating specifically to the "Wikimedia board of trustees communication and travel fund" or something.
Absolutely. It is very important that people know how their money is spent. I deeply agree. And we know that donations were done to purchase *hardware*, because most donations were sent while wiki was broken, and we made a general call precisely to have new hardware, so no money donated to pay for server should be used for any other means. This is an essential point, and I really wish that no one have any doubts about that.
We provide right now transparent money use history. Mav has been maintaining this for a while now. See
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_bank_account_history_for_2004
Now, you should also know that Jimbo goes on paying some expenses as well, such as when a developer goes to the coloc. This is not reported in the current history.
I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two specific purposes were * hardware * purchase of a computer for Brion
I see many more. Especially for firms funding. A firm or an organisation may wish that the donation money is used in a specific way, such as support of a minority language, or sending computers with wikipedia on it to an given african country, or making a whole set of wikireaders around a specific topic. There are many options and to my opinion, donators should have the possibility to indicate what they want the money to be used for.
Aside from donations, we also recently received an award (10 000 euros), and the money from this award may be used the way we choose to use it. Which mean, we can use it for hardware, or for *anything else*, including to support costs which will help to build the community.
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.
The board will be very much what you all wish it to be Mark. So perhaps this is what we should discuss right now.
We can solve a lot of organisational issues online. If you want us to be only doing this, that is fine. It has little cost, but for our time and energy.
However, if the board is also expected to meet people outside, to write to american administration, to give interviews, to go to major events, I think paying us the costs of it, the costs for US representing YOU is not very chocking. And has little to do with corruption.
I'd like to personally add a last point. I am a working woman, so I have income. However, I am not rich. Far from it. My family has enough to live quietly. No excess though. Like many many many of you, I chose to give most of my free time (more than my free time actually) for this project, because I very strongly believe in it. I am all dedicated to give my energy to help it and I will.
But it will *not* be to the cost of my family financial stability. That would be highly unfair to my husband and my children.
I will, and I think any board member, will only be what you expect us to be. If covering our costs is too controversial, then let it be :-) We'll do just as with operating costs, we'll remove all these handy little options in special pages :-)
Cheers
ant/flo