Hoi, If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role, I would not have stood for election.
As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial reporting and the transparency not adequate. When you consider the expenditure on hardware, bandwidth and salary only for operational needs and when you compare that with any of the websites that are of similar size, you will find that the WMF operation is ultra efficient.
As you know, the WMF does more then just running operations, this gets paid as you can find in the facts that have been reported. If in addition to all this there is all this cash hidden away, then it is really amazing. There are indications how this is possible; Danese for instance indicated that she is working hard to minimise the amount needed for the new computer centre. Only the "right" people are hired. Given the speed of the staff, it is crucial to work hard at getting the right people in. As this takes more time then often desired, money is saved.
The numbers of our chapters are growing, the numbers of our projects is growing. We have a strategy, we do important work together. No, not everything is how I like. I however aim to be a part of the solution and this motivates me to blog, to help out, to stand for election. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 October 2010 21:32, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaumier@wikimedia.org wrote:
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation running for a while even if no one donated a penny.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l