Already from the start, the word "foundation" in the title of the Wikimedia Foundation has caused confusion. In Florida, you register a corporation, and "foundation" is just part of a name. In some countries in Europe, there are completely different laws for corporations, associations and foundations (German: Stiftung).
In short, a foundation (Stiftung) is an immutable long-term, self-governing holder of money. A typically example is the Nobel Foundation, which holds the money inherited from Alfred Nobel, and every year spends the interest on the Nobel Prizes.
Apparently, the WMF has a problem to foresee how much each year's donation campaign will bring in, and how the coming year's budget can be made to fit this. Perhaps each year will raise less and less money, and that we already have the best years behind us. Is there a way we could reach better long-term stability? Should the WMF set up a long-term fund and move some of this year's money there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
(Some people would claim they can easily earn more than 4% annual interest. Obviously, they should start savings banks.)
Apparently, the WMF has a problem to foresee how much each year's donation campaign will bring in, and how the coming year's budget can be made to fit this. Perhaps each year will raise less and less money, and that we already have the best years behind us. Is there a way we could reach better long-term stability? Should the WMF set up a long-term fund and move some of this year's money there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
I believe one of the things the auditors suggested with building up a reserve fund large enough to fund (I think) 6 months of activities. I think the board did intend to try and do that, but I don't think the budget includes putting anything towards it...
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the short term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Ec
Endowments and contingency funds are nice, but right now that's all academic.
After 26 days this drive is at $725k. Even running the drive for the planned 2 months, nearly 80% longer than the longest previous drive, it will be a huge surprise to come anywhere close to the $4.6M the foundation wrote down for their "budget". Rather than talking about how to put money away for the future, the immediate discussion needs to be A) how to raise money more effectively, and/or B) how to make do with less.
-Robert Rohde On Nov 17, 2007 2:31 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the short term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/11/2007, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Endowments and contingency funds are nice, but right now that's all academic.
After 26 days this drive is at $725k. Even running the drive for the planned 2 months, nearly 80% longer than the longest previous drive, it will be a huge surprise to come anywhere close to the $4.6M the foundation wrote down for their "budget". Rather than talking about how to put money away for the future, the immediate discussion needs to be A) how to raise money more effectively, and/or B) how to make do with less.
A good point. The easiest way I can see to spend less in the short term is to delay the move to SF. I haven't done the sums, so I don't know if that would be enough, but it would help. There are a lot of benefits to the move, but right now it would appear we simply can't afford it unless things greatly change. The other big expenditure is the appointment of an ED, but I'm not sure delaying that would be a good idea - we're never going to have a stable foundation until we sort out the governance.
Hoi, Do you not think that people have to be hired and fired with a sufficient amount of lead time. Do you not expect that we are past the time when we can come back on this. Do you not think that people have been looking for a new house ??? My expectation is that we will move as scheduled to SF as there is no choice in this any more. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 18, 2007 12:16 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Endowments and contingency funds are nice, but right now that's all academic.
After 26 days this drive is at $725k. Even running the drive for the planned 2 months, nearly 80% longer than the longest previous drive, it
will
be a huge surprise to come anywhere close to the $4.6M the foundation
wrote
down for their "budget". Rather than talking about how to put money away for the future, the immediate discussion needs to be A) how to raise money more
effectively,
and/or B) how to make do with less.
A good point. The easiest way I can see to spend less in the short term is to delay the move to SF. I haven't done the sums, so I don't know if that would be enough, but it would help. There are a lot of benefits to the move, but right now it would appear we simply can't afford it unless things greatly change. The other big expenditure is the appointment of an ED, but I'm not sure delaying that would be a good idea - we're never going to have a stable foundation until we sort out the governance.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/11/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Do you not think that people have to be hired and fired with a sufficient amount of lead time. Do you not expect that we are past the time when we can come back on this. Do you not think that people have been looking for a new house ??? My expectation is that we will move as scheduled to SF as there is no choice in this any more. Thanks, GerardM
The new jobs have only just been advertised, I doubt it's too late to cancel the move. I imagine it would be cheaper to pull out now that to continue with the move, which is what matters (in the short term - obviously it will cost more in the long term, but there won't be a long term if we run out of money in 6 months time).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Endowments and contingency funds are nice, but right now that's all academic.
After 26 days this drive is at $725k. Even running the drive for the planned 2 months, nearly 80% longer than the longest previous drive, it will be a huge surprise to come anywhere close to the $4.6M the foundation wrote down for their "budget". Rather than talking about how to put money away for the future, the immediate discussion needs to be A) how to raise money more effectively, and/or B) how to make do with less.
A good point. The easiest way I can see to spend less in the short term is to delay the move to SF.
Even if it were possible, it would be a bad idea. First point is that it is not really possible; we are in the middle of the move already. Second point is that we precisely need to move also to get nearer to those potential donors. We were simply too isolated in Florida.
I haven't done the sums, so I don't
know if that would be enough, but it would help. There are a lot of benefits to the move, but right now it would appear we simply can't afford it unless things greatly change. The other big expenditure is the appointment of an ED, but I'm not sure delaying that would be a good idea - we're never going to have a stable foundation until we sort out the governance.
We have such a person and we are already spending money to pay her. So, the only way we can actually decrease this cost would be by removing her or cutting down her salary (and most presumably, to be significant, the cut would have to be quite large, so it is probably not an option). I believe NO one on the board and on the staff would like to see a vacuum in that position again.
I have also been wondering what we could cut down. And to be honest, very little.
Tech has been reduced to the minimum, however, additional positions have been planned. So I could expect we can save on some of the additional developers.
Office of the ED. the office of the executive director covers salary of the ED, salary of the assistant, relocation to San Francisco (eg, travel to SF to select offices etc...) and consulting (eg, fundraising consulting, communication consulting, branding consulting etc...) I do not know if a full time assistant is really necessary. Relocation is already ongoing. Consulting... in the absence of staff in certain areas... is pretty necessary, but we can be more careful on this. Not sure how wise it is in the long run.
Board expenses. I included in that budget, board meetings (4 a year), advisory board meeting (minor expense), wikimedia chapter meeting, other travel by board members and minor other expenses (communication stuff, registration to websites...) I do not think cutting down the number of face-to-face board meeting would be reasonable. Wikimedia chapter meeting was already delayed. We can stop reimbursing board members of their travel expenses, but that would be a very sure way to make sure to lose hours of effective free of charge work. A better direction is to not hesitate to ask waivers for expenses when we can. Honestly, little to cut down here.
Wikimania has never been a cost to the Foundation in the end. Sponsors have always covered it. We might consider trying to make it a revenue source perhaps ?
Finances and administration look pretty high. But I do not think there is much to scratch here. A significant part of it is simply financial fees (paypal etc...), audit, accounting costs etc... We do not have a big fancy office. etc...
Overall, I think the B) how to do with less, is not really a sustainable option. A) is certainly a much better direction of thinking; As well as C) other sources of revenue.
And yeah, concepts of putting money aside for the future are very nice on the paper. But reality is that we need that money now. I have been told at the beginning of the fundraiser that we had two "promises" of a big matching donation. Not sure when they will show up really. Or even if they will really show up a matching donations or regular donation. What I do know though, is that we are not counting propositions of big donations by hundred, nor even dozen. I have been asking a lot around me in the past few weeks and bottom line is that every big foundation giving money just do not want to spend it on "infrastructure" and for all those people, we are just this, infrastructure. You might always try to argue that "servers" are not "infrastructure", but really "our core program", that does not matter. In the mind of philantropists, "servers" or "bandwidth" are just infrastructure, that's not sexy, they do not want to fund this.
And to be fair, I do not think that "we are saving languages" is the right pitch either. It is more sexy, but what those guys want to see are rationale, timeline, figures, proof of concept, partnerships etc... So, what we need to really work on in the near future are a "collection of grant propositions", which we can show around to philantropists. "What you will invest in" and what do you get in exchange.
Ant
Florence Devouard wrote:
Office of the ED. the office of the executive director covers salary of the ED, salary of the assistant, relocation to San Francisco (eg, travel to SF to select offices etc...) and consulting (eg, fundraising consulting, communication consulting, branding consulting etc...)
Perhaps it was a bad PR idea to combine all this. Relocation, as a one-time expense could be presented separately and wouldn't give an impression of overexpensive office.
And to be fair, I do not think that "we are saving languages" is the right pitch either. It is more sexy, but what those guys want to see are rationale, timeline, figures, proof of concept, partnerships etc... So, what we need to really work on in the near future are a "collection of grant propositions", which we can show around to philantropists. "What you will invest in" and what do you get in exchange.
One thing I was thinking about for a while: how much does Wikipedia contribute to the economy? Who could estimate it, and how could it be done? If this would be known, we could argue that Wikipedias in various languages would contribute that much to their economies.
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
Florence Devouard wrote:
Office of the ED. the office of the executive director covers salary of the ED, salary of the assistant, relocation to San Francisco (eg, travel to SF to select offices etc...) and consulting (eg, fundraising consulting, communication consulting, branding consulting etc...)
Perhaps it was a bad PR idea to combine all this. Relocation, as a one-time expense could be presented separately and wouldn't give an impression of overexpensive office.
Agreed
And to be fair, I do not think that "we are saving languages" is the right pitch either. It is more sexy, but what those guys want to see are rationale, timeline, figures, proof of concept, partnerships etc... So, what we need to really work on in the near future are a "collection of grant propositions", which we can show around to philantropists. "What you will invest in" and what do you get in exchange.
One thing I was thinking about for a while: how much does Wikipedia contribute to the economy? Who could estimate it, and how could it be done? If this would be known, we could argue that Wikipedias in various languages would contribute that much to their economies.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the short term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the short term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Money put into a savings account yields interest income, not capital gains.
A capital gain is the increase in the value of an asset. When the market value of a company's share increases from its original cost that is a capital gain. When you sell a piece of land for more than you paid for it without having altered it since you bought it, that is a capital gain. If these values go down, it is a capital loss.
Ec
On 18/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very useful, but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the short term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Money put into a savings account yields interest income, not capital gains.
A capital gain is the increase in the value of an asset. When the market value of a company's share increases from its original cost that is a capital gain. When you sell a piece of land for more than you paid for it without having altered it since you bought it, that is a capital gain. If these values go down, it is a capital loss.
Ok, perhaps my example wasn't a particularly good one, but my point stands. The profit made on a Treasury Bill is a capital gain under your definition, and they are generally considered risk-free (if the US government defaults on its debts, keeping the WMF running will be the least of our worries).
Hoi, If the US government defaults on its debts, there will still be a Wikimedia Foundation. When it proves no longer possible to be based in the US (unlikely) we will be based elsewhere. You forget that we are an international organisation. When we must, we will continue elsewhere.
The notion that we are dependent on the performance of the US government is absolutely wrong.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 18, 2007 1:33 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very
useful,
but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the
short
term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Money put into a savings account yields interest income, not capital
gains.
A capital gain is the increase in the value of an asset. When the market value of a company's share increases from its original cost that is a capital gain. When you sell a piece of land for more than you paid for it without having altered it since you bought it, that is a capital gain. If these values go down, it is a capital loss.
Ok, perhaps my example wasn't a particularly good one, but my point stands. The profit made on a Treasury Bill is a capital gain under your definition, and they are generally considered risk-free (if the US government defaults on its debts, keeping the WMF running will be the least of our worries).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If the US government defaults on its debts, the rest of the world's economy is in trouble.
-Dan On Nov 17, 2007, at 8:12 PM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, If the US government defaults on its debts, there will still be a Wikimedia Foundation. When it proves no longer possible to be based in the US (unlikely) we will be based elsewhere. You forget that we are an international organisation. When we must, we will continue elsewhere.
The notion that we are dependent on the performance of the US government is absolutely wrong.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 18, 2007 1:33 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very
useful,
but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the
short
term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Money put into a savings account yields interest income, not capital
gains.
A capital gain is the increase in the value of an asset. When the market value of a company's share increases from its original cost that is a capital gain. When you sell a piece of land for more than you paid for it without having altered it since you bought it, that is a capital gain. If these values go down, it is a capital loss.
Ok, perhaps my example wasn't a particularly good one, but my point stands. The profit made on a Treasury Bill is a capital gain under your definition, and they are generally considered risk-free (if the US government defaults on its debts, keeping the WMF running will be the least of our worries).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/11/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If the US government defaults on its debts, there will still be a Wikimedia Foundation. When it proves no longer possible to be based in the US (unlikely) we will be based elsewhere. You forget that we are an international organisation. When we must, we will continue elsewhere.
The notion that we are dependent on the performance of the US government is absolutely wrong.
Um, Gerard? It's a figure of speech, not a direct dependency.
If the state of the world is such that the government of the United States has ended up declaring bankruptcy - an alarming and implausible event - then most of us are going to be a lot more intimately concerned with our next meal than with worrying over the state of the Wikimedia Foundation, wherever it may be based...
On Nov 18, 2007 1:33 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Being able to fund activities off capital gains would be very
useful,
but really it requires large endowments to work. Building up a fund from small fundraisers isn't going to work.
Capital gains are not a reliable investment, especially not in the
short
term. Short term capital gains are mostly a matter of good luck.
Putting the cash in a savings account still constitutes capital gains. The term doesn't refer just to risky investments.
Money put into a savings account yields interest income, not capital
gains.
A capital gain is the increase in the value of an asset. When the market value of a company's share increases from its original cost that is a capital gain. When you sell a piece of land for more than you paid for it without having altered it since you bought it, that is a capital gain. If these values go down, it is a capital loss.
Ok, perhaps my example wasn't a particularly good one, but my point stands. The profit made on a Treasury Bill is a capital gain under your definition, and they are generally considered risk-free (if the US government defaults on its debts, keeping the WMF running will be the least of our worries).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, If you take last years money and had converted it to euros, the money would be more valuable in dollar terms then the 4% interest that you indicate. Also on euro you can get 4% interest. My point is not about the dollar or the euro; when you spend when you get it, the difference is not that relevant. At this moment in time we are raising more money then in the previous round from donations. We are still growing rapidly in many projects. Wiktionary for instance is doing really well (check Alexa) :) and it is not the only project that does really well. There are many untapped possibilities for getting funding. It needs effort, it needs money to make money
Last year some people made a lot of ugly noises during the fund drive. It may be the reason why we do not have matching donations. I think it shows how irresponsible this has been.
When we are going for the defensive measures you suggest, we will not have enough money for our current budget. We will not be able to expand into sourly needed capability. I do not know how to defend the defensive financing that you propose. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 16, 2007 10:41 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Already from the start, the word "foundation" in the title of the Wikimedia Foundation has caused confusion. In Florida, you register a corporation, and "foundation" is just part of a name. In some countries in Europe, there are completely different laws for corporations, associations and foundations (German: Stiftung).
In short, a foundation (Stiftung) is an immutable long-term, self-governing holder of money. A typically example is the Nobel Foundation, which holds the money inherited from Alfred Nobel, and every year spends the interest on the Nobel Prizes.
Apparently, the WMF has a problem to foresee how much each year's donation campaign will bring in, and how the coming year's budget can be made to fit this. Perhaps each year will raise less and less money, and that we already have the best years behind us. Is there a way we could reach better long-term stability? Should the WMF set up a long-term fund and move some of this year's money there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
(Some people would claim they can easily earn more than 4% annual interest. Obviously, they should start savings banks.)
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 16/11/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Last year some people made a lot of ugly noises during the fund drive. It may be the reason why we do not have matching donations. I think it shows how irresponsible this has been.
People did raise objections to the fund drive last year, but you can't describe those who objected as "irresponsible" or blame them for a lack of matching donations. A discussion, or dissent, didn't cause these problems directly - these "ugly noises" could have been ignored if they had no validity. Obviously, people listened to, and acted upon, these objecting opinions for various reasons. If you are right, people dissented and objected, these dissenting opinions were considered and acted upon (resulting in no matching donations), and we are where we are now.
Blaming people - and especially blaming people for voicing opinions - isn't going to help us or fix anything, and it certainly isn't going to foster the kind of open, considered debate we should be working towards.
Hoi, As I am of the opinion that there is a causal relation, and as I am equally allowed to express my opinion, I can and do blame. When you are of the opinion that this is not nice. Well, it only proves that it is not a zero sum game. I hope we will get enough money to cover the budget if not their will necessarily be cuts.
Where you say "these dissenting opinions were considered and acted upon" I will say "these opinions have cost us both a lot of money and a lot of goodwill". Because do you really believe that Virgin would be willing to match donations ?
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Last year some people made a lot of ugly noises during the fund drive.
It
may be the reason why we do not have matching donations. I think it
shows
how irresponsible this has been.
People did raise objections to the fund drive last year, but you can't describe those who objected as "irresponsible" or blame them for a lack of matching donations. A discussion, or dissent, didn't cause these problems directly - these "ugly noises" could have been ignored if they had no validity. Obviously, people listened to, and acted upon, these objecting opinions for various reasons. If you are right, people dissented and objected, these dissenting opinions were considered and acted upon (resulting in no matching donations), and we are where we are now.
Blaming people - and especially blaming people for voicing opinions - isn't going to help us or fix anything, and it certainly isn't going to foster the kind of open, considered debate we should be working towards.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 17, 2007 5:04 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As I am of the opinion that there is a causal relation, and as I am equally allowed to express my opinion, I can and do blame. When you are of the opinion that this is not nice. Well, it only proves that it is not a zero sum game. I hope we will get enough money to cover the budget if not their will necessarily be cuts.
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 5:04 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As I am of the opinion that there is a causal relation, and as I am
equally
allowed to express my opinion, I can and do blame. When you are of the opinion that this is not nice. Well, it only proves that it is not a
zero
sum game. I hope we will get enough money to cover the budget if not
their
will necessarily be cuts.
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
One can pad the budget with programs that you might hope to pursue if there was enough money, but you can't simply inflate the numbers for no reason. Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud. I'd like to assume that the $4.6M in "planned spending" is not so ridiculous that it would still be reasonable to have less than $1.5M in fundraiser income.
-Robert Rohde
Hoi, Who says the WMF is not doing its best to achieve the amount of money that is mentioned in our budget ? Do you really not think people will be upset when projects are shelved until better times arrive ?
Fraud has really negative implications. Suggesting that the budget is misleading and fraudulent can get you and the WMF in serious problems. Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 18, 2007 7:34 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 5:04 PM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, As I am of the opinion that there is a causal relation, and as I am
equally
allowed to express my opinion, I can and do blame. When you are of the opinion that this is not nice. Well, it only proves that it is not a
zero
sum game. I hope we will get enough money to cover the budget if not
their
will necessarily be cuts.
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
One can pad the budget with programs that you might hope to pursue if there was enough money, but you can't simply inflate the numbers for no reason. Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud. I'd like to assume that the $4.6M in "planned spending" is not so ridiculous that it would still be reasonable to have less than $1.5M in fundraiser income.
-Robert Rohde _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 18, 2007 1:34 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
One can pad the budget with programs that you might hope to pursue if there was enough money, but you can't simply inflate the numbers for no reason.
I don't claim they're inflated for no reason, I only claim that they're inflated.
Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud.
A budget is by definition a forward-looking statement. Obviously it is dependent, among other things, on actually receiving the money requested. Proving fraud would be impossible. Besides, the $4.6 million dollars doesn't even call itself a "budget".
If the percentages are known to be misleading, that might constitute fraud, although proving it would still be impossible. But asking for way more than you need and more than you ultimately get is not fraudulent even if it could be proven.
I'd like to assume that the $4.6M in "planned spending" is not so ridiculous that it would still be reasonable to have less than $1.5M in fundraiser income.
Less spending on capital expenditures, along with other cuts (the board certainly doesn't need anywhere near $200K/year, Wikimania costs should be borne by the participants, etc.) would probably make $1.5 million reasonable. Capital expenditures are always optional, after all, since they're an investment in the future as well as an expense. How reasonable depends in part on how much is in the bank and how many servers were already bought in the current fiscal year. The current figures being released by the foundation are woefully inadequate to tell for sure.
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
On Nov 18, 2007 9:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Capital expenditures are always optional
If we want to sustain current growth (or anything close to it), capital expenditure is *not* optional.
No, it isn't. Servers can be leased.
Hoi, We can even sell our servers to the leasing company and get all this money and realise our budget. Because it will be obvious that we can do the same trick again next year, right ?
Actually consider the original proposal for setting aside money for leaner times. With the systems that we have we can maintain our current requirements and "only" have to pay for bandwidth and hosting. I think our current system of buying our servers, and not pay the leasing company overhead, is right in the middle between these two extremes.
Thanks, GerardM
On Nov 18, 2007 5:24 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 9:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Capital expenditures are always optional
If we want to sustain current growth (or anything close to it), capital expenditure is *not* optional.
No, it isn't. Servers can be leased.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 18, 2007 11:37 AM, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We can even sell our servers to the leasing company and get all this money and realise our budget. Because it will be obvious that we can do the same trick again next year, right ?
Selling the servers can't be done every year, but I'm not the one who suggested that, you are.
Actually consider the original proposal for setting aside money for leaner times.
I did, and pointed out a couple reasons that I think it's a terrible proposal.
With the systems that we have we can maintain our current requirements and "only" have to pay for bandwidth and hosting. I think our current system of buying our servers, and not pay the leasing company overhead, is right in the middle between these two extremes.
As long as you keep raising donations in excess of your need, maybe. The question I was responding to was what if you only have $1.5 million for the year.
On 18/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 9:28 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Capital expenditures are always optional
If we want to sustain current growth (or anything close to it), capital expenditure is *not* optional.
No, it isn't. Servers can be leased.
Unless you're expecting usage to start decreasing in the future, leasing would be *far* more expensive than buying. Yes, the cost is spread out more, so if we *really* can't afford to, then it is an option that might have to be considered, but it really should be a last resort. Bandwidth and servers need to be our first priorities, without them, there is no point having anything else. I'd say we should start laying off staff before we stop buying new servers.
On Nov 18, 2007 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Bandwidth and servers need to be our first priorities, without them, there is no point having anything else. I'd say we should start laying off staff before we stop buying new servers.
There needs to be a balance there. The right staff can save more money than you pay them.
On 18/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Bandwidth and servers need to be our first priorities, without them, there is no point having anything else. I'd say we should start laying off staff before we stop buying new servers.
There needs to be a balance there. The right staff can save more money than you pay them.
I said *start* laying off staff, not lay off all the staff. WMF is too big to run with 100% volunteers now, laying off all the staff would be a very bad plan.
On Nov 18, 2007 12:11 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 11:45 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Bandwidth and servers need to be our first priorities, without them, there is no point having anything else. I'd say we should start laying off staff before we stop buying new servers.
There needs to be a balance there. The right staff can save more money than you pay them.
I said *start* laying off staff, not lay off all the staff. WMF is too big to run with 100% volunteers now, laying off all the staff would be a very bad plan.
I don't really see what positions could be cut, and I can think of a few that should be expanded. Maybe a few positions could be outsourced, I guess.
I don't really see what positions could be cut, and I can think of a few that should be expanded. Maybe a few positions could be outsourced, I guess.
I'd say, at a bare minimum, we could get away with a general manager, one tech person, a legal counsel and an accountant. We would have to cut back on anything not essential to keeping the websites running, but I think we could just about get by with those 4 members of staff.
On Nov 18, 2007 5:27 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 1:34 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
<snip>
Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud.
A budget is by definition a forward-looking statement. Obviously it is dependent, among other things, on actually receiving the money requested. Proving fraud would be impossible. Besides, the $4.6 million dollars doesn't even call itself a "budget".
If the percentages are known to be misleading, that might constitute fraud, although proving it would still be impossible. But asking for way more than you need and more than you ultimately get is not fraudulent even if it could be proven.
<snip>
"Proving" fraud is essentially a legal problem, and not one I am very interested in. Personally, I care more about whether these planned spending guides are misleading for ethical reasons. I don't want the WMF to be the kind of organization that would mislead the public about their fiscal needs and how donations would be spent. If these statements have been intentionally grossly inflated, that would be very frustrating to me, in a "Don't be evil" sort of way. I'd prefer to believe that the WMF really does have needs and plans for how to use $4M that consist of more than a gimmick to increase donations. And hence, I'd prefer to believe that having only $1.5M in fund drive income would be a bad thing and not what everyone was secretly really expecting.
-Robert Rohde
Anthony wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 1:34 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
One can pad the budget with programs that you might hope to pursue if there was enough money, but you can't simply inflate the numbers for no reason.
I don't claim they're inflated for no reason, I only claim that they're inflated.
Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud.
A budget is by definition a forward-looking statement. Obviously it is dependent, among other things, on actually receiving the money requested. Proving fraud would be impossible. Besides, the $4.6 million dollars doesn't even call itself a "budget".
If the percentages are known to be misleading, that might constitute fraud, although proving it would still be impossible. But asking for way more than you need and more than you ultimately get is not fraudulent even if it could be proven.
I'd like to assume that the $4.6M in "planned spending" is not so ridiculous that it would still be reasonable to have less than $1.5M in fundraiser income.
Less spending on capital expenditures, along with other cuts (the board certainly doesn't need anywhere near $200K/year, Wikimania costs should be borne by the participants, etc.) would probably make $1.5 million reasonable.
As a side note, Wikimania is entirely paid by "participants+sponsors" (mostly sponsors). However, its organization still appears in the "expenses" because these are expenses. We simply do not need to fundraise for Wikimania, it is covered by other means; but it is still part of the overall budget.
As for "board expenses", not sure you saw the note I left on WMF site about this. I apology for the unclarity of this part of the budget. We shall be more explicit next time. They rather constitute "governance" expenses than board expenses. These expenses include * board meeting expenses (ie, 4 meetings per year. Travel costs essentially). Can we cut down on these, my position is no. * an advisory board meeting (it occured immediately before Wikimania and at the same place. Essentially, it counts location of the room, travel expenses of 4 advisory board members who could not support their costs themselves; it also included hosting costs for all participants). Can we cut down on these ? Probably we can, but to be fair, amount was quite small. * wikimedia chapter meeting. One was held last year in october in Frankfurt. I originally suggested a new one this year again in Frankfurt, early december. The budget included travel and hosting costs of part of the participants (not only board members but also participants staff as well as participation of some of the chapter people). My own estimate was quite rough, and I saw other estimates afterwards which were slightly higher. As earlier mentionned, this meeting was cancelled, and I hope, will happen later in 2008. Final budget can vary depending on the location chosen, and ability of chapters to handle their participation themselves. Bottom line, this was not really a board expense, but a "governance" expense and definitly not involved only the board itself. Can we cut on that ? well, we can cancel the meeting permanently, but this is not something I will support. * other travel by board members. This includes Wikimania participation, visits to local chapters, or other travels not covered by other organizations. Amounts are quite limited actually. Jimmy covers most of his own travels. Aside from Wikimania, I do not think Jan-Bart or Frieda claim much. Michael is not travelling. I am not fully sure for Kat, but as a student, her freedom of mouvement is limited. Most of these expenses must come from Erik and I, and I think it is not scandalous at all. Note that we have now two policies to check those expenses. All expenses over 100 dollars must be pre-approved prior to the travel by one or two board members. * The rest of the expenses are registration to charity websites etc... peanuts.
We were not clear at all in explaining these expenses. Next time, I promise we'll try to be more specific.
Capital expenditures are always optional, after
all, since they're an investment in the future as well as an expense. How reasonable depends in part on how much is in the bank and how many servers were already bought in the current fiscal year. The current figures being released by the foundation are woefully inadequate to tell for sure.
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
And which could not be delivered until we had the staff to actually prepare them. But I suppose I do not really need to explain that to you again :-) that's the snake eating his tail.
ant
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:27:23 -0500 From: wikimail@inbox.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Putting the Foundation back in WMF
On Nov 18, 2007 1:34 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 7:54 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
One can pad the budget with programs that you might hope to pursue if there was enough money, but you can't simply inflate the numbers for no reason.
I don't claim they're inflated for no reason, I only claim that they're inflated.
Soliciting donations with a budget you know is misleading constitutes fraud.
A budget is by definition a forward-looking statement. Obviously it is dependent, among other things, on actually receiving the money requested. Proving fraud would be impossible. Besides, the $4.6 million dollars doesn't even call itself a "budget".
If the percentages are known to be misleading, that might constitute fraud, although proving it would still be impossible. But asking for way more than you need and more than you ultimately get is not fraudulent even if it could be proven.
I'd like to assume that the $4.6M in "planned spending" is not so ridiculous that it would still be reasonable to have less than $1.5M in fundraiser income.
Less spending on capital expenditures, along with other cuts (the board certainly doesn't need anywhere near $200K/year, Wikimania costs should be borne by the participants, etc.) would probably make $1.5 million reasonable. Capital expenditures are always optional, after all, since they're an investment in the future as well as an expense. How reasonable depends in part on how much is in the bank and how many servers were already bought in the current fiscal year. The current figures being released by the foundation are woefully inadequate to tell for sure.
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
And on that note, isn't there some audit thingummy we're supposed to be hearing something about? Hasn't that been in the pipeline for quite a while? Or am I all imagining this?
CM
_________________________________________________________________ Get free emoticon packs and customisation from Windows Live. http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
And on that note, isn't there some audit thingummy we're supposed to be hearing something about? Hasn't that been in the pipeline for quite a while? Or am I all imagining this?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#July_2007_Update
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:44:44 -0500 From: wikimail@inbox.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Putting the Foundation back in WMF
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
And on that note, isn't there some audit thingummy we're supposed to be hearing something about? Hasn't that been in the pipeline for quite a while? Or am I all imagining this?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#July_2007_Update
Evidently I'm not imagining it, then - though unless I'm missing something very obvious, that page's timetable breaks off unresolved at the back end of September. Last time I checked it was mid-November nowadays. Seems a tad slow, what? Is someone unhappy with the state of play - no sticky wickets, I hope - or are people busy? Is overwork the problem? Inefficiency? Or am I getting all hot and bothered about nothing, as usual?
CM
_________________________________________________________________ Feel like a local wherever you go. http://www.backofmyhand.com
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:44:44 -0500 From: wikimail@inbox.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Putting the Foundation back in WMF
The figures for the finance and administration are at $700,000/year. Maybe that's necessary, but with that much being spent I sure hope we start getting those regular financial reports that were promised something like two years ago.
And on that note, isn't there some audit thingummy we're supposed to be hearing something about? Hasn't that been in the pipeline for quite a while? Or am I all imagining this?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report#July_2007_Update
Evidently I'm not imagining it, then - though unless I'm missing something very obvious,
that page's timetable breaks off unresolved at the back end of September. Last time I checked it was mid-November nowadays. Seems a tad slow, what? Is someone unhappy with the state of play - no sticky wickets, I hope - or are people busy? Is overwork the problem? Inefficiency? Or am I getting all hot and bothered about nothing, as usual?
CM
No benefit to getting hot anyway :-) I've been answering a bunch of questions, including audit stuff, for the signpost, but got stuck with basically no internet for the full week and did not finish answering questions. I am trying to do it *now*. If lucky, you should get an update in the next signpost.
Ant
Anthony wrote:
The budget wasn't met last time either, was it? Looking back it seems like less than half the budget was raised during the entire fiscal year, and the foundation only spent about half of that ($1.4 million raised, only 0.7 million in expenses).
Only 0.7 million in expenses? Where is this stated?
As the person who made the technical budget, and did a detailed analysis of costs of the past fiscal year, I can tell you that we spent quite a bit more than that in the technical department alone... All directly related to our still exponential growth.
These supposed budgets look completely unrealistic to me. I assumed that was intentional. Ask for way more than you need, and then settle for half that. It's a common strategy.
...and certainly not the case here.
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, If you take last years money and had converted it to euros, the money would be more valuable in dollar terms then the 4% interest that you indicate.
It would not be a wise act of management to engage in currency speculation.
Also on euro you can get 4% interest. My point is not about the dollar or the euro; when you spend when you get it, the difference is not that relevant. At this moment in time we are raising more money then in the previous round from donations. We are still growing rapidly in many projects.
Any plan to depend on growth over an extended period of time will be on shaky ground. It can work over a limited time period, but we must not become addicted to growth.
Last year some people made a lot of ugly noises during the fund drive. It may be the reason why we do not have matching donations. I think it shows how irresponsible this has been.
I can't blame Virgin if they don't want to go through the same experience again. The True Believers can have a hard time understanding how being doctrinaire about our principles can be so counterproductive.
When we are going for the defensive measures you suggest, we will not have enough money for our current budget. We will not be able to expand into sourly needed capability. I do not know how to defend the defensive financing that you propose.
A contingency reserve makes good financial sense. In the absence of big endowments a percentage of all net donations can be budgetted into a contingency reserve until that fund is built to the desired size. When it is built up the investment income can be used for other things.
Ec
On Nov 16, 2007 4:41 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Should the WMF set up a long-term fund and move some of this year's money there, as a reserve for future meager years?
Not to any significant extent, for at least two reasons.
1) There would be negative tax consequences to doing so. 2) The only remaining check the community has on the power of the board (the power of the purse) would disappear.
Incidentally, 2 is actually the reason for 1.
If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever.
If there's never any inflation or taxation, maybe. But in the real world, no, a much larger fund (or a much higher interest rate) would be necessary to support the foundation forever.
(Some people would claim they can easily earn more than 4% annual interest. Obviously, they should start savings banks.)
Too many regulations, unfortunately. It is easy to earn more than 4% annual interest, in US dollars, though. Even long term treasury bonds can do better than that. Use something like prosper.com and you can probably get at least 8%. Don't know about other currencies, except that interest rates vary greatly among them.
Anthony wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 4:41 PM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Should the WMF set up a long-term fund and move some of this year's money there, as a reserve for future meager years?
Not to any significant extent, for at least two reasons.
- There would be negative tax consequences to doing so.
- The only remaining check the community has on the power of the
board (the power of the purse) would disappear.
Incidentally, 2 is actually the reason for 1.
Of course it would be unwise to not consider the tax consequences. Any concrete proposal must be viable in its own right before we even consider the tax effect. Once we get that far we need a clear evaluation of the tax effects and the possible mechanisms to avoid them.
When did the community ever have the power of the purse?
If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever.
If there's never any inflation or taxation, maybe. But in the real world, no, a much larger fund (or a much higher interest rate) would be necessary to support the foundation forever.
Sure, but let's not deal with forever until we get there.
(Some people would claim they can easily earn more than 4% annual interest. Obviously, they should start savings banks.)
Too many regulations, unfortunately. It is easy to earn more than 4% annual interest, in US dollars, though. Even long term treasury bonds can do better than that. Use something like prosper.com and you can probably get at least 8%. Don't know about other currencies, except that interest rates vary greatly among them.
I agree that planned investment can do better than 4%, and still be relatively safe, but needing the funds in the very near future severely limits investment options.
Ec
When did the community ever have the power of the purse?
Never. By "community" we usually mean the editors. As far as I know, most donations come from readers, not editors.
I agree that planned investment can do better than 4%, and still be relatively safe, but needing the funds in the very near future severely limits investment options.
The usual method with endowments is to spend the interest, not the principle. Only the principle is difficult to access in long term investments.
On Nov 17, 2007 6:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
When did the community ever have the power of the purse?
Never. By "community" we usually mean the editors. As far as I know, most donations come from readers, not editors.
A good point - and it'd be interesting to see just who the donors are. But my point still stands that right now the board has to continue to perform if they want the donations to keep coming in.
On 16/11/2007, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Already from the start, the word "foundation" in the title of the Wikimedia Foundation has caused confusion. In Florida, you register a corporation, and "foundation" is just part of a name. In some countries in Europe, there are completely different laws for corporations, associations and foundations (German: Stiftung).
In short, a foundation (Stiftung) is an immutable long-term, self-governing holder of money. A typically example is the Nobel Foundation, which holds the money inherited from Alfred Nobel, and every year spends the interest on the Nobel Prizes.
In the UK, "an immutable long-term, self-governing holder of money" would be a fund or a trust. Still in terms of the UK, "foundation" is a fair description of what the Wikimedia Foundation does. Legal definitions change between countries, so I'm not sure what your point is.I don't think a legal term exists in *all legal jurisdicitons* that would validly describe what the WF does and not cause confusion.
Lars,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Lars Aronsson wrote:
there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
This does come up from time to time. It is tremendously important. Being able to choose to give to a limited fund or trust for core sustenance would be a great thing.
I would fundraise aggressively for a trust to support core Wikipedia sustenance for the next century. [ditto for a supporting trust for public.resource.org -- Carl Malamud, call your office.]
As it stands, I am anxious that we don't talk every season about reserves and contingencies. When I had limited input into budg discussions in 2004 and 2005, I cared primarily that reserves were always budgeted for and that they increased over time. I have no idea whether this has continued... back then we were targeting a reserve to cover 3 months of operating expenses, as a bare minimum. It hadn't yet reached that mark by the time quarterly budget details stopped being transparent.
Having a proper trust set up would be far better. But this takes work to cleanly define its scope and structure.
Two related tangents :
* we as a community should be able to bring down the cost of core maintenance each year, through innovations in technology and the good will of dozens of global partners; making our collective work as robust as possible to bankruptcy, war, greed, and other human quirks. Focusing on what that core costs may help highlight good work in this area.
* true robustness requires maintaining and caring about reliable full and incremental dumps. image and full-history en dumps are hard to come by these days... and these immediate issues receive much less air time than discussions of new R&D (which are more exciting as news; there's nothing very exciting about spectacular uptime and trouble-free maintenance).
SJ
On Nov 21, 2007 5:58 PM, SJ Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Lars,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Lars Aronsson wrote:
there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
This does come up from time to time. It is tremendously important. Being able to choose to give to a limited fund or trust for core sustenance would be a great thing.
I would fundraise aggressively for a trust to support core Wikipedia sustenance for the next century.
I completely agree with this.
While I don't doubt that if the announcement was made that "Wikipedia was going off the air tomorrow", a few wealthy donors would probably step up, it's awfully hard to be fully independent under those circumstances. And being able to guarantee baseline minimum operation would free up fundraising for other areas, as well; many grants, for instance, don't fund day-to-day operating expenses. It would also lessen the potential for having to make hard choices when the fundraisers didn't do well.
A long-term Wikimedia Endowment, specially for keeping the sites up and backed up and nothing else, could conceivably be of interest to many donors that wouldn't normally consider giving, as well; academic institutions, perhaps, or groups concerned with the preservation of information. Such a project deserves a separate, thoughtful, dedicated fundraising effort until it happens.
-- phoebe
I'd like to see the Foundation have a "security blanket" too. Although, the way I see this is you're more likely to get support from developing countries before you get it from the developed - in terms of a government actually giving money.
I'm curious about what impact a project like Wikipedia has on a country's economy. The database of information at your fingertips has to save a fortune in research costs for companies all over the world, and from my perspective I'd be delighted to see a portion of my taxes - no strings attached - going to the Foundation.
If WMF can survive for another five or so years then the first kids who get the OLPC XO machines will be seriously starting to contribute in their native languages. I actually expect a far higher uptake of editing from these groups than developed countries; also a lower level of vandalism, because people who have very little value what they have. One of the first things the OLPC pilot projects have done is introduce the students to wiki technology. Why? It is the foundation of what the Internet was initially meant to be - a two way process, information exchange. Uruguay has ordered 100,000 XO machines and plans to have one in the hands of every child within 3-4 years. If they achieve their goal then these kids will be better connected than many in the developed world. They can't afford to donate, and it isn't immediately obvious that WMF is helping them. Yet, even with 0.1% of these kids becoming Wikimedians that's another 400 contributors in their language.
I know I'm rambling here, but I think there's another fundraiser blog post in "providing information to the developing world". People in the developing world need practical information, and they can share it via wiki. Simple things like the cheapest way to dig a reliable well, or how to efficiently irrigate a crop are the things that interest them. Ways to incrementally improve their standard of living because they learn something new.
This, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Latest_trial_of_the_One_Laptop_Per_Child_running _in_India%3B_Uruguay_orders_100%2C000_machines, is Wikinews' article on the OLPC, with Uruguay's order for 100,000 not given a great deal of prominence. I expect in 5 or so years Uruguay's economy will start to see the payoff from investing in OLPC, and a significant percentage of the students who've got the machines will rely on Wikipedia as well as contribute to it.
Projects like OLPC are going to be world-changing for some countries, and the information available from sites like Wikipedia is going to be a part of that.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of phoebe ayers Sent: 23 November 2007 11:26 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Putting the Foundation back in WMF
On Nov 21, 2007 5:58 PM, SJ Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Lars,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Lars Aronsson wrote:
there, as a reserve for future meager years? If the interest rate is 4% then a fund which is 25 times bigger than the budget can support it in whole for ever. But even a smaller fund might be a good help. Should donors be given the option of giving to the current budget or giving to the fund? Has this been discussed?
This does come up from time to time. It is tremendously important. Being able to choose to give to a limited fund or trust for core sustenance would be a great thing.
I would fundraise aggressively for a trust to support core Wikipedia sustenance for the next century.
I completely agree with this.
While I don't doubt that if the announcement was made that "Wikipedia was going off the air tomorrow", a few wealthy donors would probably step up, it's awfully hard to be fully independent under those circumstances. And being able to guarantee baseline minimum operation would free up fundraising for other areas, as well; many grants, for instance, don't fund day-to-day operating expenses. It would also lessen the potential for having to make hard choices when the fundraisers didn't do well.
A long-term Wikimedia Endowment, specially for keeping the sites up and backed up and nothing else, could conceivably be of interest to many donors that wouldn't normally consider giving, as well; academic institutions, perhaps, or groups concerned with the preservation of information. Such a project deserves a separate, thoughtful, dedicated fundraising effort until it happens.
-- phoebe
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If WMF can survive for another five or so years then the first kids who get the OLPC XO machines will be seriously starting to contribute in their native languages.
How will they contribute? For a start, I think they'll be using an offline copy of Wikipedia, and secondly, they are not likely to have access to any other resources with which to research things to add to Wikipedia.
The OLPC project does its best to make sure there is real Internet access in the school of each village that is targeted.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 23 November 2007 12:55 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Putting the Foundation back in WMF
If WMF can survive for another five or so years then the first kids who
get
the OLPC XO machines will be seriously starting to contribute in their native languages.
How will they contribute? For a start, I think they'll be using an offline copy of Wikipedia, and secondly, they are not likely to have access to any other resources with which to research things to add to Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Nov 23, 2007 6:54 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If WMF can survive for another five or so years then the first kids who get the OLPC XO machines will be seriously starting to contribute in their native languages.
How will they contribute?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If WMF can survive for another five or so years then the first kids who get the OLPC XO machines will be seriously starting to contribute in their native languages.
How will they contribute? For a start, I think they'll be using an offline copy of Wikipedia, and secondly, they are not likely to have access to any other resources with which to research things to add to Wikipedia.
Connectibility will indeed remain a problem for some time yet.
They can contribute about their own culture, or they can interpret other useful world information into the local language.
Ec
How will they contribute? For a start, I think they'll be using an offline copy of Wikipedia, and secondly, they are not likely to have access to any other resources with which to research things to add to Wikipedia.
Connectibility will indeed remain a problem for some time yet.
They can contribute about their own culture, or they can interpret other useful world information into the local language.
Ec
You don't need a lot of references to participate in Wikibooks, Wikijunior, Wikiversity, Wiktionary, etc. Once you get past the wikipedia-centric world view, there are plenty of opportunities for OLPC children around the world to contribute to the WMF projects.
--Andrew Whitworth
Brian McNeil wrote:
I'd like to see the Foundation have a "security blanket" too. Although, the way I see this is you're more likely to get support from developing countries before you get it from the developed - in terms of a government actually giving money.
That's an interesting theory.
I'm curious about what impact a project like Wikipedia has on a country's economy. The database of information at your fingertips has to save a fortune in research costs for companies all over the world, and from my perspective I'd be delighted to see a portion of my taxes - no strings attached - going to the Foundation.
I think that most of the national economic effects will be infrastructural, and not easily visible. Education is a part of a nation's infrastructure. Investments in this sort of thing does not produce an immediate bang for the buck, and that holds back some companies from investing.
People in the developing world need practical information, and they can share it via wiki. Simple things like the cheapest way to dig a reliable well, or how to efficiently irrigate a crop are the things that interest them. Ways to incrementally improve their standard of living because they learn something new.
We've had editors who believe that how-to articles are too POV to include in the 'pedia. :-)
I expect in 5 or so years Uruguay's economy will start to see the payoff from investing in OLPC, and a significant percentage of the students who've got the machines will rely on Wikipedia as well as contribute to it.
It will take much longer than that, and the effect will be gradual.
Ec
People in the developing world need practical information, and they can share it via wiki. Simple things like the cheapest way to dig a reliable well, or how to efficiently irrigate a crop are the things that interest them. Ways to incrementally improve their standard of living because they learn something new.
We've had editors who believe that how-to articles are too POV to include in the 'pedia. :-)
Maybe not wikipedia, but Wikibooks has a large number of how-to books, and actively encourages the creation of more. In fact, the how-to cleanup template on wikipedia was expanded to mention wikibooks as an acceptable destination for such articles. Wikipedia contains information, Wikibooks and Wikiversity teach people how to put that information to use. It's called "synergy".
I expect in 5 or so years Uruguay's economy will start to see the payoff from investing in OLPC, and a significant percentage of the students who've got the machines will rely on Wikipedia as well as contribute to it.
It will take much longer than that, and the effect will be gradual.
especially if they are editing via motorcycle :) More seriously, is there a spanish Wikijunior? Children with laptops and a vested interested in WMF projects should be encouraged to participate in that project. Their teachers too. It would be an excellent resource for Uruguayan schools, to use free textbooks on their OLPC laptops.
--Andrew Whitworth
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org