If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role,
I would not have stood for election.
As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial
reporting and the transparency not adequate. When you consider the
expenditure on hardware, bandwidth and salary only for operational needs and
when you compare that with any of the websites that are of similar size, you
will find that the WMF operation is ultra efficient.
As you know, the WMF does more then just running operations, this gets paid
as you can find in the facts that have been reported. If in addition to all
this there is all this cash hidden away, then it is really amazing. There
are indications how this is possible; Danese for instance indicated that she
is working hard to minimise the amount needed for the new computer centre.
Only the "right" people are hired. Given the speed of the staff, it is
crucial to work hard at getting the right people in. As this takes more time
then often desired, money is saved.
The numbers of our chapters are growing, the numbers of our projects is
growing. We have a strategy, we do important work together. No, not
everything is how I like. I however aim to be a part of the solution and
this motivates me to blog, to help out, to stand for election.
On 20 October 2010 21:32, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier
No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the
How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even
then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation
running for a while even if no one donated a penny.
foundation-l mailing list