Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to begin building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt to rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan. We also plan to have this conversation as a part of the larger strategic planning process because building an endowment means prioritizing some future needs over some current needs.
Before we can begin to support an endowment, there is strategic groundwork that should be completed to ensure that the effort is both thoughtful and successful. To help get the conversation moving, I seeded the discussion page with a few questions that we are hoping you will help us answer. Please add the questions I didn't think to ask, too. We'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this and your help in thinking through some of the strategic questions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay Best regards,
Lisa Gruwell
Lisa,
Thank you for sharing these exciting news and all the work the team has completed so far. I know I have spoken with many of our community members in the past about this important milestone in protecting our community's work long-term. I am looking forward to hearing more from everyone as we make this real.
Lila
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to begin building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt to rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan. We also plan to have this conversation as a part of the larger strategic planning process because building an endowment means prioritizing some future needs over some current needs.
Before we can begin to support an endowment, there is strategic groundwork that should be completed to ensure that the effort is both thoughtful and successful. To help get the conversation moving, I seeded the discussion page with a few questions that we are hoping you will help us answer. Please add the questions I didn't think to ask, too. We'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this and your help in thinking through some of the strategic questions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay Best regards,
Lisa Gruwell _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks!
I added a section to the talk page asking about how we would actually go about investing... the purpose of an endowment is to let it grow and just spend some of the interest, but that growth doesn't happen in a vacuum. Investment happens by putting money into other peoples' businesses and letting them pay you back with interest.
So we'd be asking donors for tens of millions of dollars to invest in third-party businesses -- a fundamental change in our fundraising proposition. Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
-- brion
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to begin building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt to rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan. We also plan to have this conversation as a part of the larger strategic planning process because building an endowment means prioritizing some future needs over some current needs.
Before we can begin to support an endowment, there is strategic groundwork that should be completed to ensure that the effort is both thoughtful and successful. To help get the conversation moving, I seeded the discussion page with a few questions that we are hoping you will help us answer. Please add the questions I didn't think to ask, too. We'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this and your help in thinking through some of the strategic questions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay Best regards,
Lisa Gruwell _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's a good question.
Alternatives to private sector equity investments include public-sector bonds, as well as commodities and currencies. While I wouldn't recommend that WMF do either of the latter two, there might be some reasonable choices for WMF in the public sector bond market.
In the private sector, I hope that WMF would be very careful about the ethics of the companies and industries in which it chooses to invest.
Pine On Nov 30, 2015 10:01 AM, "Brion Vibber" bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks!
I added a section to the talk page asking about how we would actually go about investing... the purpose of an endowment is to let it grow and just spend some of the interest, but that growth doesn't happen in a vacuum. Investment happens by putting money into other peoples' businesses and letting them pay you back with interest.
So we'd be asking donors for tens of millions of dollars to invest in third-party businesses -- a fundamental change in our fundraising proposition. Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
-- brion
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to begin building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan. We also plan to have this conversation as a part of the larger strategic planning process because building an endowment means prioritizing some future needs over some current needs.
Before we can begin to support an endowment, there is strategic
groundwork
that should be completed to ensure that the effort is both thoughtful and successful. To help get the conversation moving, I seeded the discussion page with a few questions that we are hoping you will help us answer. Please add the questions I didn't think to ask, too. We'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this and your help in thinking through some of
the
strategic questions.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment_Essay Best regards,
Lisa Gruwell _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to begin building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt to rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
Mardetanha
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to
begin
building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching an endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Heh. $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants that are separate from direct fundraising. It *might* last 5-7 years of bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep up-to-date with this.
This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to proceed.
Risker/Anne
On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha mardetanha.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
Mardetanha
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell lgruwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when to
begin
building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching
an
endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As good as having an endowment might be, I would like to see substantial improvements to WMF's budget transparency and annual plan process before the fundraising for an endowment starts.
Pine On Dec 1, 2015 15:25, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants that are separate from direct fundraising. It *might* last 5-7 years of bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep up-to-date with this.
This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to proceed.
Risker/Anne
On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha mardetanha.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and
keep
running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
Mardetanha
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when
to
begin
building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching
an
endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I will second that recommendation. Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 8:14 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Endowment Discussion
As good as having an endowment might be, I would like to see substantial improvements to WMF's budget transparency and annual plan process before the fundraising for an endowment starts.
Pine On Dec 1, 2015 15:25, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants that are separate from direct fundraising. It *might* last 5-7 years of bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep up-to-date with this.
This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to proceed.
Risker/Anne
On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha mardetanha.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and
keep
running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
Mardetanha
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when
to
begin
building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching
an
endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib e
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@li sts.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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11098 - Release Date: 12/01/15
Hoi, A much more fundamental question is do we actually want to do less or do we want to do more. I am not of the opinion that the WMF is bloated and ineffective. Yes it could do better in places but there is so much that we could do and fail to do because of lack of funding.
No we should not go bare bones. Arguably the whole notion of an endowment fund is a bad idea because it gets people to think in terms of spending less not more. Thanks, GerardM
On 2 December 2015 at 00:25, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. $100 million USD is just a little more than is raised (and spent) on an annual basis throughout all the Wiki-chapters and WMF, including grants that are separate from direct fundraising. It *might* last 5-7 years of bare-bones "keeping the lights on only" functions, but that would mean no software upgrades (except what volunteers do in accord with their own desire as opposed to actual need), no community support, no funds to chapters, no Wikimania or hackathons or other conferences, no support for free-as-in-libre work, and very little assurance that if there were major changes in the most commonly used platforms, the WMF would be able to keep up-to-date with this.
This is going to take a fair amount of thinking through, and needs to include our thinking about what we would consider the minimal operating functions of the project, and how long it would need to be able to proceed.
Risker/Anne
On 1 December 2015 at 18:09, Mardetanha mardetanha.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and
keep
running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
Mardetanha
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:22 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lisa Gruwell <lgruwell@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi all-
For several years, the Wikimedia movement has been having discussions https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment about whether and when
to
begin
building an endowment. I put an essay up on meta recently in an
attempt
to
rekindle this conversation with the community. We included launching
an
endowment in the FY 2015-16 annual plan.
Fantastic, this is exciting news. I am very happy to see this moving forward, and will comment on the talk page of the endowment essay.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thinking about our social responsibility as an investor is probably worthwhile.
I agree, and this is a good point to bring up.
The endowment, if it's of a scale that will be effective, will have an investment manager and perhaps even an investment committee. I think directing that group to look at investment vehicles (i.e. mutual funds) with certain value guidelines in mind would be appropriate, much as we would direct them to have certain financial goals and levels of risk in mind. Figuring out what those values should be might not be so easy, but we could look at the investment policies of other large socially-minded organizations for ideas.
best, Phoebe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 1 December 2015 at 23:09, Mardetanha mardetanha.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?
That $100m number sounds oddly familiar, so a quick historical footnote:
The endowment idea was first suggested seriously in 2006 (at least, I can't see it being discussed before) and a figure of $100m was being generally quoted as what would be needed by 2008. There had been some discussions about a hypothetical "$100m donation" before that, in 2006-7, and it might be that this helped shape the discussion of how big an endowment might need to be.
In 2008, the number was examined a bit and it was seen as plausibly solid - our annual operating costs were a little under $5m at that point and getting a 5% return on endowment was a reasonable expectation.
As Anne points out, though, we do a lot more now than we did then!
Andrew.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org