I completely agree, when I have seen the candidatures, I have had this first feeling: "a lot of candidates only english speaking (with a little knowledge of another language)".
The board should have a good communication and should be representative... this don't mean that the members should be polyglot, but these are little signs... how many languages has got Wikipedia? Why?
Ilario
----Messaggio originale---- Da: notafishz@gmail.com Data: 10.08.06 19.58 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"foundation-l@wikimedia.org Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] board candidacies
On 8/10/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/10/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Internationally, it means that countries where the English
languages
is widespread are probably going to have a greater
representation.
Changing this would be likely be extremely difficult and/or
expensive.
And it's somewhat of a catch-22: Wikimedia probably won't have
very
much representation from non-English speakers until it's easy
for
Wikimedians of different languages to communicate with each
other, but
until Wikimedia has more representation from non-English
speakers
translation issues will probably remain a relatively low
priority.
As for project representation, I don't think board members should
be
representing individual projects in the first place. Wikipedia
is by
far the largest and most successful project, so it doesn't
surprise me
that board candidates use that project for their discussion
pages.
I think you are missing the point entirely. What we are asking is for this election to be representative of the Wiki*m*edia community in its entirety, ie. all languages and all projects. Being on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation as Florence pointed out, does not mean changing policies in the English Wikipedia, no more than in Wikisource or the Chinese Wikipedia for that matter. It means seeing the greater vision, understanding, or be ready to understand what's at stake in all projects and all languages, making sure the projects are able to flourish regardless of their size or fame in the outside world. It means taking the right decisions as to where Wikimedia will use the money it has, the right decision on which partners to choose so as to allow to pursue our mission, ie. support free and open knowledge and access to information.
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
Walter
I completely agree, when I have seen the candidatures, I have had this first feeling: "a lot of candidates only english speaking (with a little knowledge of another language)".
The board should have a good communication and should be representative... this don't mean that the members should be polyglot, but these are little signs... how many languages has got Wikipedia? Why?
Ilario
----Messaggio originale---- Da: notafishz@gmail.com Data: 10.08.06 19.58 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"foundation-l@wikimedia.org Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] board candidacies
On 8/10/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/10/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Internationally, it means that countries where the English
languages
is widespread are probably going to have a greater
representation.
Changing this would be likely be extremely difficult and/or
expensive.
And it's somewhat of a catch-22: Wikimedia probably won't have
very
much representation from non-English speakers until it's easy
for
Wikimedians of different languages to communicate with each
other, but
until Wikimedia has more representation from non-English
speakers
translation issues will probably remain a relatively low
priority.
As for project representation, I don't think board members should
be
representing individual projects in the first place. Wikipedia
is by
far the largest and most successful project, so it doesn't
surprise me
that board candidates use that project for their discussion
pages.
I think you are missing the point entirely. What we are asking is for this election to be representative of the Wiki*m*edia community in its entirety, ie. all languages and all projects. Being on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation as Florence pointed out, does not mean changing policies in the English Wikipedia, no more than in Wikisource or the Chinese Wikipedia for that matter. It means seeing the greater vision, understanding, or be ready to understand what's at stake in all projects and all languages, making sure the projects are able to flourish regardless of their size or fame in the outside world. It means taking the right decisions as to where Wikimedia will use the money it has, the right decision on which partners to choose so as to allow to pursue our mission, ie. support free and open knowledge and access to information.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some.
? We do not have any dot com millionaires on the board.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here).
Well, it is not allowed, not just by our bylaws as I understand it, but by the law. This is not a matter of anyone treating Anthere in any bad way.
She mentioned specific expenses, expenses which the foundation can and should reimburse. She should request reimbursement for those.
--Jimbo
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here).
Well, it is not allowed, not just by our bylaws as I understand it, but by the law. This is not a matter of anyone treating Anthere in any bad way.
Nonprofit directors can legally be compensated, barring rules (such as bylaws) to the contrary. Not that this is a good idea.
http://www.legalzoom.com/law_library/non-profit/Directors-and-Officers-of-th...
Anthony
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote:
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some.
? We do not have any dot com millionaires on the board.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here).
Well, it is not allowed, not just by our bylaws as I understand it, but by the law. This is not a matter of anyone treating Anthere in any bad way.
She mentioned specific expenses, expenses which the foundation can and should reimburse. She should request reimbursement for those.
We fundamentally agree here, but I would be hesitant to frame it in terms of "The Law". There are places where the compensation for Board participation is an unusually high per diem for attendance at meetings. This can effectively circumvent the legal concept that a non-profit organization is not there for the financial benefit of its members.
It is much more effective when policies of this kind reflect deeply held beliefs instead of the law.
Ec
The issue of board reimbursements for legitimate expenses is being discussed. There is a difference between asking people to be reimbursed for costs and being paid a salary for being a board member. If your life circumstances are such that you can make ends meet, the most demanding issue for your involvement in Wikimedia issues is time, not money. Moving forward, based on the board's improving financial stability, the issue raised by Anthere will not be as significant a problem, if not eradicated completely.
Erik Zachte wrote:
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
Erik Zachte
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Erik Zachte wrote:
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
I recently sat on a committee of a local unrelated organization that dealt with the compensation issue on a much smaller scale. There too, one of the borderline issues had to do with babysitting. It can be a very tricky issue that needs to be approached with a great deal of sensitivity. Before answering I made a point of reviewing the transcript http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Panel
There is a clear distinction between paying a salary to a board member, and reimbursing him for out-of-pocket expenses. The specific quote from Jimbo is "I have no interest in being paid." I would not extrapolate from that comment an inference that no-one should be paid. On the other hand paying the airfare for key people to travel halfway around the world is perfectly acceptable.
Anthere, IMHO, has a reputation for taking principled positions. If she felt that it was unethical to be reimbursed for her babysitting expenses I need to respect that position. I am certainly not prepared to prejudge what would have happened if she had asked for a reimbursement of that expense. Very few of us need to deal with that specific expense. I can also look at the joke in the spirit in which it was intended, and not as a real criticism of anybody. Anyone there who actually saw the tiny baby in the gentle hands of a gorilla would have laughed.
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws. I don't think that Jimbo is the only one giving speeches, though I did think that the criticism of Brad for accepting a speaking engagement when he "should be in the office" was somewhat petty.
Ec
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a clear distinction between paying a salary to a board member, and reimbursing him for out-of-pocket expenses. The specific quote from Jimbo is "I have no interest in being paid." I would not extrapolate from that comment an inference that no-one should be paid. On the other hand paying the airfare for key people to travel halfway around the world is perfectly acceptable.
There is a test in the UK that the Inland Revenue (Taxation) use, which basically tests an expenses payment as (I paraphrase) "was this cost incurred wholly and directly as a result of an activity required by virtue of the employment". This principle can be easily and clearly applied to consideration of personal expenses in our situation; any costs in excess of what the individual would have spent if they had not been carrying out an activity on behalf od the Foundation is clearly covered.
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending the location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
Alison Wheeler
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a clear distinction between paying a salary to a board member, and reimbursing him for out-of-pocket expenses. The specific quote from Jimbo is "I have no interest in being paid." I would not extrapolate from that comment an inference that no-one should be paid. On the other hand paying the airfare for key people to travel halfway around the world is perfectly acceptable.
There is a test in the UK that the Inland Revenue (Taxation) use, which basically tests an expenses payment as (I paraphrase) "was this cost incurred wholly and directly as a result of an activity required by virtue of the employment". This principle can be easily and clearly applied to consideration of personal expenses in our situation; any costs in excess of what the individual would have spent if they had not been carrying out an activity on behalf od the Foundation is clearly covered.
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending the location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
Alison Wheeler
Yes
BUT.
The drawline is "being from the WMF" and "representing the WMF"
It is somehow difficult to define when someone is giving speech because he is from the WMF and representing the WMF, when this person may also be giving the speech as the representant of another organisation (such as Wikia for example), or when this person may also be invited to give a speech just due to him being famous and having a good vision interesting people.
If WMF, then WMF should pay the costs and receive the fee. If Wikia, then Wikia should pay the costs and receive the fee possibly. If "self", then speaker should pay the costs and speaker gets the fee.
Sometimes, it is really hard to know.
ant
There could be partial reimbursements for cases like these.
On 8/11/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a clear distinction between paying a salary to a board member, and reimbursing him for out-of-pocket expenses. The specific quote from Jimbo is "I have no interest in being paid." I would not extrapolate from that comment an inference that no-one should be paid. On the other hand paying the airfare for key people to travel halfway around the world is perfectly acceptable.
There is a test in the UK that the Inland Revenue (Taxation) use, which basically tests an expenses payment as (I paraphrase) "was this cost incurred wholly and directly as a result of an activity required by
virtue
of the employment". This principle can be easily and clearly applied to consideration of personal expenses in our situation; any costs in excess of what the individual would have spent if they had not been carrying
out
an activity on behalf od the Foundation is clearly covered.
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending
the
location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
Alison Wheeler
Yes
BUT.
The drawline is "being from the WMF" and "representing the WMF"
It is somehow difficult to define when someone is giving speech because he is from the WMF and representing the WMF, when this person may also be giving the speech as the representant of another organisation (such as Wikia for example), or when this person may also be invited to give a speech just due to him being famous and having a good vision interesting people.
If WMF, then WMF should pay the costs and receive the fee. If Wikia, then Wikia should pay the costs and receive the fee possibly. If "self", then speaker should pay the costs and speaker gets the fee.
Sometimes, it is really hard to know.
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthere wrote:
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a clear distinction between paying a salary to a board member, and reimbursing him for out-of-pocket expenses. The specific quote from Jimbo is "I have no interest in being paid." I would not extrapolate
from that comment an inference that no-one should be paid. On the other
hand paying the airfare for key people to travel halfway around the world is perfectly acceptable.
There is a test in the UK that the Inland Revenue (Taxation) use, which basically tests an expenses payment as (I paraphrase) "was this cost incurred wholly and directly as a result of an activity required by virtue of the employment". This principle can be easily and clearly applied to consideration of personal expenses in our situation; any costs in excess of what the individual would have spent if they had not been carrying out an activity on behalf od the Foundation is clearly covered.
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending the location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
Alison Wheeler
Yes
BUT.
The drawline is "being from the WMF" and "representing the WMF"
It is somehow difficult to define when someone is giving speech because he is from the WMF and representing the WMF, when this person may also be giving the speech as the representant of another organisation (such as Wikia for example), or when this person may also be invited to give a speech just due to him being famous and having a good vision interesting people.
If WMF, then WMF should pay the costs and receive the fee. If Wikia, then Wikia should pay the costs and receive the fee possibly. If "self", then speaker should pay the costs and speaker gets the fee.
Sometimes, it is really hard to know.
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This determination should be the responsibility of the communications committee. Outside requests for a speaker to represent the foundation should be directed to them. It's their job to review speaker requests and then identify the best candidate from the organization and community to represent the foundation. We have a number of great people in the community who should be encourage to handle these speaking requests. All reasonable expenses incurred by any speaker on behalf of the foundation will be reimbursed by the foundation through the communications committee's PR budget. The communications committee has already started moving in this direction. They're not 100% there yet but they are getting closer.
Anthere is correct - if a speaker is representing WMF then WMF receives the fee. The board should enact an ethics policy stating this principle.
Michael
Michael Davis wrote:
This determination should be the responsibility of the communications committee. Outside requests for a speaker to represent the foundation should be directed to them. It's their job to review speaker requests and then identify the best candidate from the organization and community to represent the foundation. We have a number of great people in the community who should be encourage to handle these speaking requests. All reasonable expenses incurred by any speaker on behalf of the foundation will be reimbursed by the foundation through the communications committee's PR budget. The communications committee has already started moving in this direction. They're not 100% there yet but they are getting closer.
Anthere is correct - if a speaker is representing WMF then WMF receives the fee. The board should enact an ethics policy stating this principle.
Michael
It would sure clarify all this banter to publish a policy for expense report submission, mileage, hotel, cell phones, etc so the lines get drawn. This seems like business 101 stuff. I guess the word "reasonable" sums it up.
J
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending the location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
This is as much a matter of who is paying for the expenses. My comment was rooted in the presumption that in such circumstances the host organization was also paying the expenses in addition to the speaker's fee.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, August 11, 2006 21:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Conversely, I would *totally* disagree with
If someone wants to generously pay a board member to give a keynote speech that board member is entitled to keep it. This is not a matter for our by-laws.
If someone is given a speech *because* they are from the WMF and *representing* the WMF at that presentation, then any fees received are the 'income' of the WMF. Obviously, the costs involved with attending the location to give that speech (which might include travel, hotel, etc) would be payable by the WMF. One can't have it both ways (ie get a fee *and* claim expenses)
This is as much a matter of who is paying for the expenses. My comment was rooted in the presumption that in such circumstances the host organization was also paying the expenses in addition to the speaker's fee.
Ec
Man, there is a total disconnect on this whole thing with you folks.
WMF is a non-profit corporation. If you serve on the Board, you have a Fudiciary Duty of Loyalty to the Foundation in exchange for being allowed to use its goodwill and other consideration (go look that up on Wikipedia). ALL of the money goes to them. You can submit expense reports BASED ON APPROVED POLICIES by the mangement and Board. It's a corporation, not a pirate ship where everyone gets to split up the booty.
Whatever consideration they offer (this is normally salary but can be any good consideration, like using their good name, privileges, etc.) creates obligations under the LAW and you are required to honor their LEGAL RIGHTS and protect them.
You guys need to get this part. You should ask for two things and only those two things are something you are ENTITLED TO under the LAW and they are OBLIGATED to provide.
1. Defining the consideration for your participation (at present this is a board seat and offer to pay expenses and allow you to trade on their goodwill as a representative for promoting yourself as a member of their Board and expenses).
2. Policy on expenses reimbursement.
That's it. Whatever else they are offering or providing is based on their generosity and kindness (and all of the folks in WMF, from my observation are kind and generous folks).
You guys need to stop viewing it like you get to stick your hands in the foundations pockets and divert donations to yourselves. I am certain there will be a lot of fallout for representing them and opportunities to come to whomever does this job, but you have to stand with your hat in your hand and let them decide your value. All of this other talk about poaching speakers fees would be breach of fiduciary duty -- not a great way to start a business relationship that will build trust.
Anyway,
Love all of you,
Jeff
Ray Saintonge
I can also look at the joke in the spirit in which it was intended, and not as a real criticism of anybody. Anyone there who actually saw the tiny baby in the gentle hands of a gorilla would have laughed.
Yes, I agree now on the joke being innocent by itself and, as I said earlier, witty.
But I can relate to the fact that when one has just explained a difficult personal situation in front of a few hundred people and a camera or two, by the way this was after Jimmy gave his initial response, and those people have a good laugh and then switch topic, one might feel even more alone than when no reaction is given at all.
I would not have thought of mentioning it when anyone (me including of course) would have followed up with a serious comment. It was the situation rather than the joke by itself that was somewhat embarassing.
Erik Zachte
Ray Saintonge wrote: Anyone there who
actually saw the tiny baby in the gentle hands of a gorilla would have laughed.
errrr.
by the way, here is a picture of one of our current candidate : http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_5544.JPG
I like this one as well :http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuirdj/206009045/
As for Q: Why is Angela leaving the board? She says it's become less collaborative. How? A: (Angela) E.g., we vote on a wiki rather than having discussions.
She has it right on spot. Before, we talked. And after, we were unable to remember exactly what was decided and when. Now we vote. And we are nearly unable to settle on a proposition which makes sense to all of us precisely because it is in written format.
tough, eh :-)
Anthere wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote: Anyone there who
actually saw the tiny baby in the gentle hands of a gorilla would have laughed.
errrr.
by the way, here is a picture of one of our current candidate : http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IMG_5544.JPG
I like this one as well :http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuirdj/206009045/
Heh :)
As for Q: Why is Angela leaving the board? She says it's become less collaborative. How? A: (Angela) E.g., we vote on a wiki rather than having discussions.
She has it right on spot. Before, we talked. And after, we were unable to remember exactly what was decided and when. Now we vote. And we are nearly unable to settle on a proposition which makes sense to all of us precisely because it is in written format.
I hope I'm not oversimplifying this, but...
IRC is closer to talking than using a Wiki, and you can log it...
You can always record a conversation...
Walter van Kalken wrote:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things.
Board members are not required to spend their own money for things. I am unaware of any board member ever being turned down for reimbursement of any expenses.
This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
Absolutely right! They have not been required to spend their own money for things, but in many cases they have (as I have).
--Jimbo
Walter van Kalken wrote:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
Being a volunteer can be costly, and many of us deal with those costs cheerfully. I'm sure there is a level of participation where subsidy is warranted, but I would be hard-pressed to define that level. Do you think that you could put your concerns in more concrete terms. Who should be subsidized, and when?
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org