Gerard Meijssen wrote: I see a few inter-related questions here that I think must be resolved during the drafting of the next Strategic Plan: * who should primarily be responsible for collecting donations? * how large, in terms of staff and budget, should the Wikimedia Foundation be? * how large, in terms of staff and budget, should individual chapters be? * should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to be headquartered in San Francisco? * how do we measure effectiveness/impact of programs by the Wikimedia Foundation and chapters? I personally don't think the current model of having so many staff in such an expensive area of the world is practical or sustainable. The cost of being in San Francisco, California seems to _far_ outweigh any benefit it's providing. It's been six years since the Wikimedia Foundation moved out to San Francisco and what do we have to show for it? Weekly lunches with Wikia? Ugh. Is $60 million a year really needed? I doubt it, we did just fine with a fraction of that amount. But these questions and their answers all need to be thoroughly explored, in my opinion. A big theme I see here is that we need to hold the Wikimedia Foundation to the same standards as the chapters in terms of funds allocation. There's a process for the Wikimedia Foundation and there's a process for everybody else, and that is unfair and needs to be fixed. I thought we were getting closer to resolving this by having the Wikimedia Foundation budget go through the Funds Dissemination Committee or Annual Plan Grants or similar. My sense is that currently people are (rightly) deeply offended that the chapters are being held to a much higher standard than the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly in terms of discretionary spending, but also in terms of how programs are measured. The Wikimedia Foundation has made plenty of costly screw-ups but these errors are seemingly completely detached from its budget, unlike chapters. That's not right. I'm hoping we can find concrete and addressable issues to resolve. MZMcBride