I find myself in furious agreement with Charles here. For years the Foundation has been insisting (and quite rightly so) that allied organisations consider only the stark benefit-per-dollar that they can extract for each piece of movement funding, as measured by KPIs and metrics. Handing out money to fellow travellers, no matter how well intentioned, and expecting only warm fuzzies in return seems to be to fly in the face of that. Grants directed to the development specific functionality that Wikimedia can use and which can later be included in other project's core offerings? Sure, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But I think that handing out unrestricted grants and "giving back" just because we're nice people and they're nice people strays too far from the Foundation's mission and contradicts the message about budgetary discipline that has been hammered into chapters over the years. Cheers, Craig On 16 April 2014 07:34, Charles Andrès <charles.andres.wmch(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

I don't think the message of having a bit of discipline in your budget and making value-for-money a prime consideration is at all a bad thing for chapters to be doing. The way that the message was hammered in was at times arrogant, aggressive, or plain out insulting, but the message itself was a good one. Large cash gifts made to third parties, in my view, rarely represent good value-for-money. All I ask for is a little consistency. I would also posit that if WMF donors wanted to donate to a worthy project like MariaDB, they'd donate to that rather than to the Foundation. I don't think targeted grants to reach some particular goal that can be shown to directly benefit the Foundation are at all a problem, and if we're going to walk down this road that's probably the better road to take, rather than acting as a charitable middleman, redistributing donor funds to other nonprofits that don't share our particular mission. Cheers, Craig On 16 April 2014 22:05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Mike. The question is that open software and open knowledge are not so close as open knowledge and open data and open content, for instance. In that case the Wikimedia projects can receive a benefit (supporting an open software community it's a way to support better a strategical technology). Anyway it would be good to have a more transparent and clear overview to understand what can be and what cannot be funded and what should be the process of approval and what should be the maximum amount. Regards On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Michael Peel &lt;email(a)mikepeel.net&gt; wrote: -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

I agree, but the message is that to do open content is not mandatory to have open software. Everyone can release open content generated/elaborated with his own software. And viceversa, who uses open software can use it also for "close" content. It's the same distinction that legally exists between software and content/data. What I have understood is that there is a larger vision of open knowledge and a closer one. The same Wikipedia's articles are not clear. Personally I consider the open knowledge derivative of the open software and a subset of the open software, but I respect the vision of the other party. For this reason I am saying that should be defined who can receive financial support. The importance of free software is not excluded (and I said that it's strategical), but the users have the freedom to choose their own tools and what can match their knowledge/expertise. Regards On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Quim Gil &lt;qgil(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

Yes I agree, but this means that MariaDB must be financed because it's strategical. Financing MariaDB would be possible also to keep it "open/free" and to assure that Mediawiki runs in an open software. But I am answering to the generic question "sponsorship/donations to other organizations" saying that the magic word "open" doesn't suppose the eligibility because there are some concepts which are functional to the open content (for instance the open data helps to improve the open content) and something which is important but less functional. What happens for the affiliated groups should happen also for the external organizations indicating some parameters of eligibility. Regards On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > Hoi, > How do our users have the freedom to choose their own tools ? When they use > MediaWiki, they are supported. MediaWiki is dependent on a stack of > software that is open / free. This stack is essential and, MariaDB is part > of it. Then there is free / open software used in extensions and stuff. > There is software used for the management of our software, the WMF > administration. It can be argued that software used on Labs may qualify but > that is it. > > All other software is not supported by the WMF and why should it. "Users" > may choose whatever to produce their own open content but that is far > removed from what we do and might support. > > Yes we can produce another list. But what is the point; it does only list > what we could support not what we will support nor does it provide any > entitlement. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 23 September 2014 12:01, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com> > > I agree, but the message is that to do open content is not mandatory to > > have open software. Everyone can release open content > generated/elaborated > > with his own software. > > > > And viceversa, who uses open software can use it also for "close" > content. > > It's the same distinction that legally exists between software and > > content/data. > > > > What I have understood is that there is a larger vision of open knowledge > > and a closer one. The same Wikipedia's articles are not clear. > > > > Personally I consider the open knowledge derivative of the open software > > and a subset of the open software, but I respect the vision of the other > > party. > > > > For this reason I am saying that should be defined who can receive > > financial support. > > > > The importance of free software is not excluded (and I said that it's > > strategical), but the users have the freedom to choose their own tools > and > > what can match their knowledge/expertise. > > > > Regards > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Quim Gil &lt;qgil(a)wikimedia.org> > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Ilario Valdelli &lt;valdelli(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is that open software and open knowledge are not so > close > > as > > > > open knowledge and open data and open content, for instance. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe I'm misreading the "not so close" part, but just in case: > > > > > > Free software is a subset of free knowledge, and a very important one > for > > > Wikimedia since all our content is digital. Free knowledge run by > > non-free > > > software is captive, as many open initiatives dismissing this point > have > > > learned the hard way. We can't take for granted that free software will > > be > > > always available and maintained either. This is why we need to take the > > > collaboration with free software initiatives vital to us as seriously > as > > > the collaboration with other open knowledge initiatives. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ilario Valdelli > > Wikimedia CH > > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > > Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> > > Skype: valdelli > > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> > > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> > > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > > > Tel: +41764821371 > > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch

just to make the "broad support" one voice broader, i agree that supporting the ecosystem as sj called is vital. i also like the term "give back" as wikipedia would not be the same without this ecosystem. rupert rupert Am 23.09.2014 11:42 schrieb "Quim Gil" &lt;qgil(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>:

On 15 April 2014 21:08, Martijn Hoekstra &lt;martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: In the case of CC, OSM or Freenode, we prevail upon these organisations' resources considerably; it's akin to outsourcing infrastructure. We use their stuff to a degree that I think it's an obviously right thing, and defensible as such, to support them financially. - d.

IMHO it would be absolutely OK to support such organizations/groups with works related to Wikimedia project, which could also benefit general public. 2014-04-15 22:27 GMT+02:00 David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: OSM Foundation budget is roughly 100 000 GBP per year. http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances/Income_2012 http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances/Balance_Sheet_2012 and they are not charity, however I can imagine supporting them via WMF Grant Program for specific projects (for example buying and maintaining separate server for tiles for Wikimedia Projects, which could speed up MiniWikiAtlas, :-) ). For Document Foundation (LibreOffice) - I can imagine supporting them with grant to improve their MediaWiki extension, etc... They are charitable in Germany, their income is about 120 000 EUR per year: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Tdfbudget2013.pdf -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

Many of the chapters are still in "startup mode" - a challenge that the WMF should avoid when targeting organizations for sponsorship or donation. Perhaps more saliently, OSM, MariaDB, Internet Archive etc. are not representing the Wikimedia movement, aren't using Wikimedia trademarks, and presumably would receive a much, much smaller portion of their total operating revenue from the WMF than chapters typically expect. All good reasons why the WMF should not treat them in the same manner as Wikimedia chapters, user groups or thematic orgs.

I too think the idea, in the general sense, is a good one (we SHOULD be supporting our fellow-travellers) but there are lots of difficulties in the detail. Forgive me if this is not correct, but isn't the idea of having a close (potentially financial) relationship to likeminded organisations what the "movement partners" concept was for? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partn… That page was created by, and has only been edited by, members of the WMF Board of Trustees and specifically lists possible examples of "Mozilla, Creative Commons, WikiEducator, Freenode" and says "They may have access to Wikimedia grants as per minimum rights". Unlike Chapters, user groups and thematic organisations, this quadrant of the Affiliations Model <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models>has never really been elaborated upon. I think it has a lot of great potential to formalise the relationship between Wikimedia and external organisations that have related missions and values to us. Perhaps elaborating the "movement partners" concept and specifically the financial rights that it brings would be useful for this discussion.... Importantly the concept is already "on the books" and not starting from scratch. -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

On 04/15/2014 05:12 PM, David Gerard wrote: One thing that Erik has not mentionned (probably because it simply slipped his mind) is that this is exactly what we have done for Freenode in the past six or seven months. They were aching for a couple extra nodes, and we are currently hosting one for them. This was a one-off, and is not very onerous for us to provide (we already have the hardware and infrastructure; the only ongoing cost is bandwidth and a little bit of ops time). I suppose it can be seen as a contribution of the ops team itself -- we were pretty much unanimous that if a way could be found to help them in a way that would not impact production (it has), then contributing to a project we rely upon daily was a "no brainer". FWIW, I agree with the general principle as well, and I don't even see it as a objective creep: the maintenance of the ecosystem of tools and infrastructure which makes Wikipedia possible is a necessary part of our mission. It does little help to have all the data if there doesn't exist an infrastructure of open source software to make running the projects possible. -- Marc

I think Steven's interpretation here is pretty sound - yes, it's legitimate for us to do this, but we should be a bit cautious :-) Infrastructure tools yes, GIMP probably not. Andrew. On 17 April 2014 04:10, Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Steven Walling &lt;steven.walling(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, this is part of the reason why I'm considering a donation to them - they're definitely in start-up mode, and we want them to survive. We can continue to handle these kinds of gifts as a very rare, discretionary thing for now (and I may want to move forward with MariaDB because a) they asked, b) they need support, c) we need them to survive), and focusing (per other comments in this thread) more on how we can build systems around grants for tools that directly support content contributors. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) &lt;nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: We made a $10K donation to the MariaDB Foundation in May, and they generously elevated us to "Member" status for a year (normally at $50K). https://mariadb.org/en/supporters/ https://mariadb.org/en/foundation/ Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

2014-04-18 0:46 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk &lt;lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org&gt;rg>: [OT] As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever! Cristian p.s.: "pay gold" is a figure of speech, but I would definitely personally support such a project! [OT]

Hello, I began to write a new thread about spam control, then remembered this recent one on a similar topic. Integrating spam control more deeply into all of our tools and services - including particularly MediaWiki - is important for many audiences. Is there an overview of current anti-spam tech (for MW in particular, but related: for our preferred Ticket-handling and Mailing-list toolchains), and projected roadmaps? Comparisons with the best known proprietary tools, to see what remains to be built? This strikes me as something that we and the FSF and other groups could collaborate on. Sam On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Tilman Bayer &lt;tbayer(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: