That's quite a dip! Setting the fundraiser back a couple of weeks does not sound like a bad idea. I have already thought that trying to get $1.5M by January 6 may be a bit unrealistic, even -with- matching donors. On 12/31/06, Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

On 31/12/06, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: Is it reflected in previous years, normalising for trend?

Tim Starling wrote: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png > The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling > week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued > throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now > than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might > not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a > couple of weeks. > -- Tim Starling If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks sooner", I must emphasize we expected to start the fundraising *sooner* than it actually started. We were delayed first by the audit (we absolutely wanted to be able to show financial results and a general budget along with the fundraising call). We were also delayed one more week, because technical details were not ready (if I remember well, crm was not entirely set up, site notice was not done at all, no agreement made with matching donors, the very cool fundraising website was not done yet, no press release had been written etc...). In short, we were not ready. Two weeks sooner would have been cool, but we just *did not have* the resources to make that happen. No use "wondering" if that would have been better. It was just not possible. If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks later", this was envisionned and much discussed; On one hand we wanted to give donors the opportunity to make a donation in year 2006, for tax deductibility purposes. On the other hand, the cash available was getting low. So, we decided to move on anyway. As for the realistic amount... let us be realistic. We have two main options. Either we give no goals. People see the money flow in, and are reassured. They think "oh, that's cool, they have enough money and we will not see any fundraising before a long time". And on our side, we despair in silence. Because we know we will proceed with a strict economy of sort. Or we give a goal. Or hint there is a goal. And perhaps reach it, perhaps do not reach it. If we do not reach, it is kinda easy to say "this goal were irrealistic, how stupid it was to set up such a goal". From my point of view, I prefer you to think we are irrealistic, but to realise that if we do not have enough money, then we will not have enough money to function properly. That may mean delay to purchase servers (hence, poor service to readers and editors). That may mean less developers (hence, no development of much needed features). That may mean less legal support (hence, additional delay when you are waiting for a contractual agreement to publish a DVD, or no help if you are a chapter and want support to retrieve a cybersquatted domain). That may mean no big meeting to work on the future of mediawiki. That may mean letting people abuse our trademarks, because we have no mean to go after abusers. Well, I prefer that we set up a goal that appears irrealistic, but which is nevertheless what we need. If we fail that goal, at least, I can explain why the Foundation will not pay a developer to work on reviewed-versions, or why the Foundation will not pay the travel of people to go to the next chapter meeting. These are examples. We can set up the priorities, and only fund the priorities. With much regrets for the other cool things we could do :-) Ant _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l