In a message dated 6/18/2005 9:38:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, erik_moeller@gmx.de writes:
Hello Danny,
earmarking is something I generally support, with some caveats. My main concern is that not everything we *should* do will necessarily be directly funded by the community. This is especially true for bootstrapping investments that benefit projects that currently don't have a large supporting community yet. So I suggest that beyond overhead costs, a substantial amount of money of every donation is also allocated to a general bootstrapping fund to be used at the Foundation's discretion. Hi Erik
I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore, this is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the subject of a second email in a day or two.
As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants, though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where they want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know that at least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some concern. Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would like to hear what other people say as well.
It could be split into different (broad) areas, e.g.: Bootstrap - Documentation: $5K Bootstrap - Development: $5K
I think that operational costs should take top priority. There's not much point in asking people to fund development if we can't afford to keep the servers running. So during a fundraising drive, only after our goal is met, the "slots" for targeted donations should be opened. This might also add some excitement to the drive. I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think this will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can hope to cover.
My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this, we need to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with that, though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source development and free content. But that's very long term thinking (years). Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications. Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some funding for Wikimania.
Danny
Best,
Erik
On 6/19/05, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
First, let me tell Danny how great I find this proposal. My experience in charitable organisations has led me to realize two things: 1- Donors indeed, do like to know where their money is going, it comforts them in giving over and over again. 2- Contributors also like to know that their efforts are being recognized and that what they do is supported not only by the "administration", but also by other people out there. Earmarking different projects actually allows them to go on in their projects and participate to the general purpose where they might not if they're never heard and never taken into consideration.
On the other hand, the distinctions in donations also prove that we know where we're going and that we are indeed "organised" and take care both of our goals and our donors.
I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore, this is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the subject of a second email in a day or two.
As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants, though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where they want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know that at least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some concern. Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would like to hear what other people say as well.
I am all in favour of 10%. It also allows people who give to make sure that the projects they are supporting will still exist since some of their money goes into servers and bandwidth. Well presented, this figure makes a lot of sense.
I think that operational costs should take top priority.
[snip]
I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think this will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can hope to cover.
I agree with Danny. Many people don't give because they don't exactly know what they give for. The first step to implementation of course goes through better communication from us of what the money given to general purposes has been used for. In the longer term, we will probably rely on steady grants type donations to cover the costs of running operations, and little donations will be just a "bonus" on top of those, which will allow us to pursue our more general goal, ie. spread free knowledge etc.
My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this, we need to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with that, though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source development and free content. But that's very long term thinking (years). Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications.
Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some funding for Wikimania.
Agreed with Danny. And to address Anthere's concern earlier in this thread, I imagine something like radio buttons allowing the donators to give to the "budget" they want to, making it easy both for the donator and the people who behind the scenes have to know where the money goes. A great thing would be to be able to have by each "project" its budget value and a changing figure which tells donators how far from the goal that project is.
Finally, to address Angela's concern, maybe we should find a better name than "projects" for those "things" we are talking about, not to mix them with Wikimedia projects. Actions? Community actions? Anything but *projects* would be fine I suppose.
Cheers,
Delphine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org