Ok, so there are several issues in this thread that need to be considered:
1) The Wikimedia Foundation needs cash. We all know that. So, we, as a community, should think of ways to get more donations coming in. "Matching funds" are tools frequently used in the United States because they have proven that they are effective.
2) There was a need to say that Virgin Unite was matching donations over the day. The potential donor stumbling onto one of our pages from a Google search needs to know that if he donated today, the effects of his dollar would "go farther" in a way. Besides, the name also influences the portion of the population that wants to "stick it" to a business to donate, at least to cause some perceived monetary damage to Virgin.
3) It can be considered common courtesy to indicate that Virgin was donating funds. That said, having a logo prominently displayed is a question that has its merits, and it should be discussed for future fundraisers.
4) This shows a need for greater community consultation by the Board; however, the Board cannot be all places at all times, so it would be nice to think of ways of getting more "rank and file" users to participate in foundation-level decisions. How can Wikimedia accomplish that?
Titoxd.
On 12/28/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
- It can be considered common courtesy to indicate that Virgin was donating
funds. That said, having a logo prominently displayed is a question that has its merits, and it should be discussed for future fundraisers.
Certainly.
- This shows a need for greater community consultation by the Board;
however, the Board cannot be all places at all times, so it would be nice to think of ways of getting more "rank and file" users to participate in foundation-level decisions. How can Wikimedia accomplish that?
There was a discussion on internal-l, though given how hurried this fundraiser was, I don't feel the group that was consulted had much influence on the outcome. In general I view the "internal-l / internal wiki" group as the right one for influencing decisions which require confidentiality, and the broader community as the correct one for general consultations which do not.
There is an RfA like process by which people who are currently not part of the internal group can be proposed to be given access, and use of this process has increased significantly in recent weeks. In general, the internal group consists largely of people from chapters, committees, or those who have shown some other involvement with Wikimedia.
I prefer this proceess to an elected council, because ideally, these two groups are much more dynamic, much more inclusive, and access to the smaller group is meritocratic in nature. We need to discuss the procedures for internal-l and internal wiki more openly, though, so people from the outside can comment on whether they are fair. Currently, access to internal is governed by the following Board resolution: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_chapters_committee/Access_to_...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org