"The WCA is lead by the council, who are all volunteers. They will be supported by staff, but the council are in charge."
I would love to have my Wikipedia work supported by staff too. Who is paying for said staff? How much are they projected to cost? In fact I would simply like some of the travel costs and accommodations for those involved in my Wikipedia projects covered. I am happy to cover my own costs.
We have a second draft budget here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2... at more than $300,000
We have $42,000 going to a translator / PR person? I have managed to find translators for more than 30 languages which have translated more than 1 million words in 2012 as part of this project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task... Most translation on Wikipedia is done by volunteers. Why is translation for this organization deem more important than say for key medical diseases?
I see that in the second draft the funding for the SG has decreased from 96000 euro to 60000 euro. I think the number I am looking for is around zero, we are an organization run on volunteers. The World Health Organization is willing to have a Wikipedian in Residence. I have found someone who will do it for free / the experience of working at the WHO but he needs some help covering his expenses. The person is willing to work full time to do out reach to 600 interns at the WHO who are usually young leaders in their respective medical communities from around the world.
With respect to the law firm costs of $30,000. That is a lot for supporting collaboration between chapters. With respect to $10,000 for a chapters network / skype? But skype is free and we already have meta. It is inexpensive to set up a website.
On 6 February 2013 23:31, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
"The WCA is lead by the council, who are all volunteers. They will be supported by staff, but the council are in charge."
I would love to have my Wikipedia work supported by staff too.
It is... who do you think keeps the servers you use running?
Who is paying for said staff? How much are they projected to cost? In fact I would simply like some of the travel costs and accommodations for those involved in my Wikipedia projects covered. I am happy to cover my own costs.
There are plenty of grants programmes operated by the WMF and chapters that will fund travel and accommodation for Wikimedians. Go ahead and apply...
As for who will pay for the WCA staff, that is very much up in the air at the moment... it was thought they might be funded through the FDC, but that seems unlikely now. So I guess the funds will come from the chapters in some way or another.
We have a second draft budget here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2... at more than $300,000
That is also not an approved budget and, from what I can tell, is just the idea of one person and is not intended to be representative of the views of the council. It's been sitting there for 6 months without having been approved, so I think you can interpret that as implicitly rejected.
Hi James,
I added "REJECTED" several times to that page yesterday, just to make the situation clear. Based on your email, I have now made that word big and red so there can be no mistake by anyone when they land on the page.
Doing an analysis and lambasting the Chapters Association for a concept document that the majority of the Council Members quickly rejected, is a bit of a waste of your time. Certainly I have absolutely no interest in defending this document, as I was personally unconvinced by it (though grateful for the volunteers that worked on it in good faith), and spent hardly any time reviewing it when it was presented.
Thanks, Fae
The first draft was rejected - James is talking about Theo's draft. Was that also explicitly rejected?
On 6 February 2013 23:47, Fae faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
I added "REJECTED" several times to that page yesterday, just to make the situation clear. Based on your email, I have now made that word big and red so there can be no mistake by anyone when they land on the page.
Doing an analysis and lambasting the Chapters Association for a concept document that the majority of the Council Members quickly rejected, is a bit of a waste of your time. Certainly I have absolutely no interest in defending this document, as I was personally unconvinced by it (though grateful for the volunteers that worked on it in good faith), and spent hardly any time reviewing it when it was presented.
Thanks, Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) faewik@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Am 07.02.2013 00:50, schrieb Thomas Dalton:
The first draft was rejected - James is talking about Theo's draft. Was that also explicitly rejected?
Let's put it that way: it was not considered for approval by the WCA Council. That says nothing about the quality of Theo's draft, though. We decided to focus on the place of incorporation first. While I personally did not think that's the top priority, it was considered to be by a lot of Council members. The order of issues to decide on was: place of incorporation, SG, budget. We had indication that the income side was secured enough to employ an SG and develop a budget together with her/him within the first half year.
Best, Markus
Thank you for putting it so well Markus. I have now emphasised the existing word REJECTED in bold and red on that second table too.
Thanks, Fae
Yes, thank you, Markus. A little note on the draft by Delphine (I believe it is that one referred to on the talk page): she sent it to the lists shortly before the Council meeting in Washington. I myself found that it contained a lot of reasonable items, but that at the moment it was not quite suitable for the young Association. In the meeting itself, we briefly mentioned it, but the Council did not even vote. So, to be absolutely correct, the Council also did not 'reject' it. Kind regards Ziko
2013/2/7 Fae faewik@gmail.com:
Thank you for putting it so well Markus. I have now emphasised the existing word REJECTED in bold and red on that second table too.
Thanks, Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) faewik@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae Personal and confidential. Unless otherwise stated, do not copy, quote or forward this email for any reason without permission.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 7 February 2013 12:08, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl wrote: ...
mentioned it, but the Council did not even vote. So, to be absolutely correct, the Council also did not 'reject' it. Kind regards Ziko
Good point. Shall I change the word used on meta to the phrase "Not accepted by the Chapters Association" or would something else be clearer?
Thanks, Fae
The one I am referring to is labeled "Second draft".
I would appreciate it if you not start this discussion with conflating my recommendations and removing the context completely. First, there is a talk page attached, it would be highly advisable to read that clarification and context of why I chose what. Second, my second draft at the time was reactionary to the one you see first by Delphine (user:notafish) which started with appropriating 96,000 euros as the salary for this SG and totaled close to half a million euros. I made my feelings known at the time here[1] and elsewhere on the page and lists repeatedly.
The context that you are probably missing which I mentioned at the time was that, it was premature to work on this budget without laying the groundwork, my second draft mostly revised the figures downward to the bare minimum, and it was limited by things like minimum wage laws and legal requirements. As I recall it was met with disapproval in the private discussions as "too low", I have no idea about the following discussion as I disengaged soon after that point.
I still stand by my version of the budget - it had around 60,000 euros for direct chapter development and spending on actual programs (like WLM or GLAM-related outreach), salaries for 3 full time employees, 2 part-time consultant and their associated travel costs. As mentioned by others and on the page, it was a premature budget draft - if you or anyone feels they can do better and still maintain the legal minimum for the incorporated geography - by all means, go ahead.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
"The WCA is lead by the council, who are all volunteers. They will be supported by staff, but the council are in charge."
I would love to have my Wikipedia work supported by staff too. Who is paying for said staff? How much are they projected to cost? In fact I would simply like some of the travel costs and accommodations for those involved in my Wikipedia projects covered. I am happy to cover my own costs.
As am I, and several others here. You are clearly conflating the objectives of the two. One is volunteer editing work, the other is facilitating and promoting the said work and idea. Projects with institutions, GLAMS, outreach - cost money, they require support. Your argument seems to be directed more towards the implicit nature of chapters vs. editors - I suggest you start with the biggest one with a staff that actually fits your classification.
We have a second draft budget here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_budget_2... at more than $300,000
We have $42,000 going to a translator / PR person? I have managed to find translators for more than 30 languages which have translated more than 1 million words in 2012 as part of this project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task... Most translation on Wikipedia is done by volunteers. Why is translation for this organization deem more important than say for key medical diseases?
Actually the 42,000 is for the PR/media-person who would be doing double duty and filling in for chapter support and overseeing translations, based in Belgium, which again would have to be above the minimum wage and close to the industry average. Perhaps you would like to consider the spending WMF or a large chapter like WMDE, even WMUK has towards this role and compare them.
I see that in the second draft the funding for the SG has decreased from 96000 euro to 60000 euro. I think the number I am looking for is around zero, we are an organization run on volunteers. The World Health Organization is willing to have a Wikipedian in Residence. I have found someone who will do it for free / the experience of working at the WHO but he needs some help covering his expenses. The person is willing to work full time to do out reach to 600 interns at the WHO who are usually young leaders in their respective medical communities from around the world.
It would be helpful if you dont start conflating the two worlds. You can look through Meta to see several chapters have or have had employees who are paid much more for the top position.
At this point, I understand that your work is primarily in the capacity of a volunteer, it is not your day-job. What that budget is referring to, is hiring employees. You are repeatedly comparing your work with what people do during the day from 9 to 5. I believe you have a job in some capacity, try and compare those numbers with your industry, and averages.
If you employ someone on a daily basis, I believe there exists a law in the developed countries whereby you have to pay them a legal minimum - I believe its called the Minimum wage. The other alternative is hiring people and making them work daily, sometimes against their will, from 9 to 5, but it had another term back in the day - slavery. I believe that is still frowned upon.
With respect to the law firm costs of $30,000. That is a lot for supporting collaboration between chapters. With respect to $10,000 for a chapters network / skype? But skype is free and we already have meta. It is inexpensive to set up a website.
Really? 30,000 is a lot for an year long consultation and retainer for a law firm? The law firm is or was supposed to look over contracts, documents and agreements of 40 other organizations in different languages and be available to all 40 of those organizations if needed. Please feel free to add a lower quote if you have one.
-Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Draft_bud...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org