I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board members are required to spend their own money for things) and builds on that to create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the Board).
To the best of my knowledge: 1. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal savings." 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board. 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a potential conflict of interests. 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the organization.
Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its members.
Danny
In a message dated 8/11/2006 1:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, erikzachte@infodisiac.com writes:
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
Erik Zachte
I am pretty damn sure there was a version which mentioned the requirement to be able to spend money yourself. I am going through the revision history's later to see where it was.
Waerth
I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board members are required to spend their own money for things) and builds on that to create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the Board).
To the best of my knowledge:
- The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by
the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal savings." 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board. 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a potential conflict of interests. 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the organization.
Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its members.
Danny
In a message dated 8/11/2006 1:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, erikzachte@infodisiac.com writes:
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
Erik Zachte
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board members are required to spend their own money for things)
?
Sorry Danny, but it is not a false assumption. I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. This has been the case for over 2 years now. Until last december, I had a job and it was not an issue to use my own savings. It has become an issue. And yes, Jimbo took it lightly during the board panel when I stupidely commented the issue. And yes, Andrew made fun of it saying that Thomas was taking care of by yourself during Wikimania in any cases. And yes, I felt humiliated. And yes, it is getting up to my throat right now. Badly. Everyday a little bit more. Each time I have to find a different way to organise myself to limit costs as much as I can, and each time it takes hours to find the best solution. Usually illegal, as legal is too expensive. And each time my husband talks to me angrily because my poorly built-up solutions impair his own working time. And each time I cut on something I could have offered to my own kids. And each time I am more angry.
So rrrrright, so much for the false assumptions. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are not entirely covered by the Foundation. That's not a false assumption. That's a fact.
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
Ant
and builds on that to
create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the Board).
To the best of my knowledge:
- The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by
the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal savings." 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board. 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a potential conflict of interests. 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the organization.
Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its members.
Danny
In a message dated 8/11/2006 1:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, erikzachte@infodisiac.com writes:
Walter van Kalken:
I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements. Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that the next time they start complaining with them.
I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the Board, and the Advisory Board might add some. This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their priorities right.
What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up. Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here). Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote speeches?
Erik Zachte
Anthere wrote:
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. This has been the case for over 2 years now.
The board passed a budget for your expenses and to my knowledge, you have never used it all up, nor have you asked for an increase, nor have you ever submitted any claim for expenses which has been denied. Standard policy has always been that board members should be reimbursed upon request for reasonable travel expenses.
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
No, it just requires you to submit your request. As always.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. This has been the case for over 2 years now.
The board passed a budget for your expenses and to my knowledge, you have never used it all up, nor have you asked for an increase, nor have you ever submitted any claim for expenses which has been denied. Standard policy has always been that board members should be reimbursed upon request for reasonable travel expenses.
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
No, it just requires you to submit your request. As always.
--Jimbo
Hmmmm. Right. /me notes.
Just for the info (some might wonder after all), the current policy, approved 2 years ago, is 1000 dollars per quarter for Angela and I. 3000 dollars per quarter for Jimbo.
I suggested a revision of this policy in december 2005, which may be found on meta (it was before we moved to the private board wiki) : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_policy:_Travel_expense_reimbursements
The new amounts suggested by Mav were removed, as they were to be included in the budget. I am not fully sure what these were, but I think it was 5000 for Jimbo and 3000 for other board members.
We did not make any budget in 2006 (we could never agree on one). And this policy was never passed. I do not know how far we exceeds (or not) the 1000 Angela/Anthere and the 3000 Jimbo budget.
ant
On 8/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. This has been the case for over 2 years now.
The board passed a budget for your expenses and to my knowledge, you have never used it all up, nor have you asked for an increase, nor have you ever submitted any claim for expenses which has been denied. Standard policy has always been that board members should be reimbursed upon request for reasonable travel expenses.
I've almost never used any of this, and the candidates for the election shouldn't be misled into thinking they won't incur significant personal costs.
The main problem is knowing what is an official Wikimedia related expense, so I've assumed that little of what I do is. For example, I'm currently attending conference at which I'm giving a short talk about Wikipedia tomorrow, and will be spending $90 of my own money on taxis (I could spend less if I got public transport instead, but that I don't have time to spend 4 hours on trams). I'm not paid for the event. (I've never been paid for any event, though one I did was supposed to have paid me). Is this a valid Wikimedia-related expense? I have similar things about once a month, often costing far more than $90 since they're not usually so nearby. I don't see a way of distinguishing between valid Wikimedia expenses and expenses that are only indirectly related to me being on the Board.
Angela.
On 8/12/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem is knowing what is an official Wikimedia related expense, so I've assumed that little of what I do is. For example, I'm currently attending conference at which I'm giving a short talk about Wikipedia tomorrow, and will be spending $90 of my own money on taxis (I could spend less if I got public transport instead, but that I don't have time to spend 4 hours on trams). I'm not paid for the event. (I've never been paid for any event, though one I did was supposed to have paid me). Is this a valid Wikimedia-related expense? I have similar things about once a month, often costing far more than $90 since they're not usually so nearby. I don't see a way of distinguishing between valid Wikimedia expenses and expenses that are only indirectly related to me being on the Board.
Angela.
I'd say a speaking engagement is a valid expense if the board authorized it beforehand (in a vote which recused yourself from), or if the board authorized someone other than you to make the decision and that person authorized it beforehand. There are probably more liberal standards which could be legally adopted, but those standards are a good idea to play it safe.
As far as officially sanctioned unpaid speaking engagements go, I'd think they should probably be rather rare, especially for a board member that is resigning in a short while. In my opinion the conference attendees should generally be the ones paying for your expenses, not Wikimedia. But I'm neither on the board nor authorized by the board to make these decisions, so my opinion really doesn't matter.
Anthony
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
So rrrrright, so much for the false assumptions. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are not entirely covered by the Foundation. That's not a false assumption. That's a fact.
As far as I know (and I should know a thing or two about this), being reimbursed for Wikimedia-related expenses is just a matter of requesting reimbursement and providing the necessary documentation where needed.
If you have been denied reimbursement for Wikimedia-related expenses after submitting a reimbursement form, then PLEASE tell me (for the form, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reimbursement_request_form.xls ).
Setting up an explicit per diem policy to cover food/lodging/transit would only make such requests easier (no need to get many small receipts).
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
It seems perfectly reasonable to be reimbursed for child care obtained to cover times you are traveling on Wikimedia-related business. I don't see why reimbursement of that expense would need a resolution.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board members are required to spend their own money for things)
Sorry Danny, but it is not a false assumption.
In that case there appears to be a difference between theory and practice. Some of us who believe strongly in the principles of volunteerism will judge ourselves too harshly when there is an issue of fair compensation for what we do. We can set standards that are impossibly high, and feel stressed when others do not hold themselves to the same standards.
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. This has been the case for over 2 years now. Until last december, I had a job and it was not an issue to use my own savings. It has become an issue. And yes, Jimbo took it lightly during the board panel when I stupidely commented the issue. And yes, Andrew made fun of it saying that Thomas was taking care of by yourself during Wikimania in any cases. And yes, I felt humiliated. And yes, it is getting up to my throat right now. Badly. Everyday a little bit more. Each time I have to find a different way to organise myself to limit costs as much as I can, and each time it takes hours to find the best solution. Usually illegal, as legal is too expensive. And each time my husband talks to me angrily because my poorly built-up solutions impair his own working time. And each time I cut on something I could have offered to my own kids. And each time I am more angry.
I hope somebody got a photo of Thomas and the gorilla. :-)
You are a key person in the running of a billion-dollar global enterprise! Accept what you are worth. Under these circumstances the virtue of frugality can become counterproductive. Accept the proper reimbursements, because putting yourself or your family at a disadvantage does no good to anyone. If those little bits of stress build up to where we you give up we would all lose.
So rrrrright, so much for the false assumptions. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are not entirely covered by the Foundation. That's not a false assumption. That's a fact.
Are you submitting all of your expenses?
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
By itself the $285 that you mentioned at the panel would not normally need a resolution, but this really depends on what general policy resolution the Board has passed on the matter of reimbursements.
Ec
On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I hope somebody got a photo of Thomas and the gorilla. :-)
I failed to see with my two eyes, but it would be already online ...
You are a key person in the running of a billion-dollar global enterprise! Accept what you are worth.
Not directly, but related, I think. Recently I talked with other editors at #wikimedia, if it is acceptable that someone require to reimburse a babysitter fee for two hours to concentrate an online meeting? I thought I forgot to stress such a meeting would be official one, but folks around there supported this idea.
I know Jimbo continued to stress travel expense should be reimbursed per request, and no one opposed, but I have no idea if the possiblity I mentioned on the above was discussed either publicly or privately.
I think such possibility very seriously, not only for you Anthere, but for all future possible Board members, either female or male whose hands care for their kids mainly. Diversity is one of core sources of our strength, and if only people, who let others (including his or her partner) care for their kids, were welcome as Board member, it is a loss. The Board membership should be open to anyone who understand its mission and good to make strategies, and mothers caring for kids are implicitly rejected, I need to repeat, I think it might be a great loss.
So for now we need to make a clear consensus what is acceptable and not? It would be also helpful for people who are now considering to run for the coming Election ...
Anthere wrote:
This has been the case for over 2 years now. Until last december, I had a job and it was not an issue to use my own savings. It has become an issue.
I have no easy solution for your individual case, but the situation is likely to be the same for every board member. One strategy to make the burden easier is to make it a routine to serve one or two years on the board and then leave. This can sound like a recipe for chaos, always having beginners on the board. But on the other hand, the board members would have an increasing number of former board members to consult. Being a senior and acting as a mentor for new board members doesn't require time and money for travel or babysitting. You can still travel and give speeches, if you wish, but there would be more candidates for each such task. Board membership would not be a destination, but a place you pass through.
(Let me point out that I, LA2, have no position and no wish to have one within any Wikimedia project. I never participate in wiki votes. This is not because I dislike Wikimedia, on the contrary, but because I want to remove any suspicion that I might have mixed interests with other projects where I'm involved.)
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board members are required to spend their own money for things) and builds on that to create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the Board).
To the best of my knowledge:
- The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by
the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal savings." 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board. 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a potential conflict of interests. 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the organization.
Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its members.
Absolutely! But the kind of false assumptions expressed by Erik are out there, and they will continue to be out there whether any of us like it or not. Nevertheless, I feel more comfortable when those with the concerns can express them openly where the situation can be peacefully and patiently clarified ... even if it means being repetitious.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org