Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
Thank you for publishing this. Where is the best place to discuss this plan?
On 28 July 2012 04:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe.
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 10:59, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for publishing this. Where is the best place to discuss this plan?
On 28 July 2012 04:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Risker wrote:
This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe.
Because you haven't created such a place yet. Meta-Wiki would be the appropriate wiki. You can use a generic forum such as https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum or feel free to just pick a title (such as https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Annual_Plan).
There used to be strategy.wikimedia.org, but there's general agreement that we want to push these types of discussions into a central wiki, and Meta-Wiki is that wiki.
I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a bit tricky with raw HTML being allowed there. I have some thoughts on this, but haven't had much motivation to act on them.
And this all isn't to say that I agree with your premise. This mailing list is a perfectly fine place to discuss the Annual Plan. If the community wants to be engaged in these types of discussions, they know to join and use this mailing list. It's not as though this is list is some new and foreign forum.
MZMcBride
On Jul 29, 2012 7:01 AM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Risker wrote:
This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe.
Because you haven't created such a place yet.
It is generally best for the person that announces something to specify a forum. That way you avoid discussion ending up split between multiple venues.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On Jul 29, 2012 7:01 AM, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Risker wrote:
This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe.
Because you haven't created such a place yet.
It is generally best for the person that announces something to specify a forum. That way you avoid discussion ending up split between multiple venues.
Given the bidirectional nature of this mailing list, I think the implicit option (replying here, on the same list where the plan was announced) was clear, but okay.
MZMcBride
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:00 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Risker wrote:
This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community does not subscribe.
Because you haven't created such a place yet. Meta-Wiki would be the appropriate wiki.
Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of
wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a bit tricky with raw HTML being allowed there.
This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages? Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.
SJ
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of
wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a
bit
tricky with raw HTML being allowed there.
This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages? Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.
SJ
Well, the biggest blocker would be that the WMF wiki is private.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of
wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a
bit
tricky with raw HTML being allowed there.
This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages? Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.
SJ
Well, the biggest blocker would be that the WMF wiki is private.
-- ~Keegan
For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell
Keegan Peterzell, 29/07/2012 08:29:
For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell
The situation of WMFwiki is indeed frustrating, but could we avoid OT in this thread? Unless it's a subtle strategy to make the thread useful and make people go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13 (which I'll now try to link from the main page and what not if it isn't).
Nemo
On 29 July 2012 03:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell, 29/07/2012 08:29:
For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the
wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/User:Kpeterzellhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell
The situation of WMFwiki is indeed frustrating, but could we avoid OT in this thread? Unless it's a subtle strategy to make the thread useful and make people go to <https://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#**2012-13https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13> (which I'll now try to link from the main page and what not if it isn't).
Never mind - that links to a historical page. I have started the new page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan
Risker/Anne
On 29 July 2012 03:32, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2012 03:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Keegan Peterzell, 29/07/2012 08:29:
For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the
wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/User:Kpeterzellhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell
The situation of WMFwiki is indeed frustrating, but could we avoid OT in this thread? Unless it's a subtle strategy to make the thread useful and make people go to <https://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#**2012-13https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13> (which I'll now try to link from the main page and what not if it isn't).
Never mind - that links to a historical page. I have started the new page here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan
Risker/Anne
Well, despite my best efforts, the discussion has been redirected back to < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13%3E
In other words, it is now on the bottom of a discussion page that has not been touched in 3 years simply because it says something about the WMF budget. I'm sorry, but whenever we're having a discussion about $46 million, I think it deserves its own page. Not to mention the fact that this annual plan (which is a bit different than a budget) isn't even in the same league as the ones from 2004-2009. Nothing on the actual Wikimedia budget page[1] is up to date, and it doesn't even include the links that Tilman started this thread with. Perhaps a bit more budget in the area of community engagement is called for here.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget - last edit March 2009
Well, despite my best efforts, the discussion has been redirected back to < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13%3E
In other words, it is now on the bottom of a discussion page that has not been touched in 3 years simply because it says something about the WMF budget. I'm sorry, but whenever we're having a discussion about $46 million, I think it deserves its own page. Not to mention the fact that this annual plan (which is a bit different than a budget) isn't even in the same league as the ones from 2004-2009. Nothing on the actual Wikimedia budget page[1] is up to date, and it doesn't even include the links that Tilman started this thread with. Perhaps a bit more budget in the area of community engagement is called for here.
Risker/Anne
I am probably to slow to follow real-time developments, but right now the discussion is on the top of the page, everything else was archived. For me, this is fine, may be it is indeed easier to use just one page and not to get distracted over multiple pages.
CheersYaroslav
On 29 July 2012 10:07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, despite my best efforts, the discussion has been redirected back to < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#2012-13%3E
In other words, it is now on the bottom of a discussion page that has not been touched in 3 years simply because it says something about the WMF budget. I'm sorry, but whenever we're having a discussion about $46 million, I think it deserves its own page. Not to mention the fact that this annual plan (which is a bit different than a budget) isn't even in the same league as the ones from 2004-2009. Nothing on the actual Wikimedia budget page[1] is up to date, and it doesn't even include the links that Tilman started this thread with. Perhaps a bit more budget in the area of community engagement is called for here.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget - last edit March 2009
Just as an FYI for all, this page has now been unprotected, it appears that it was protected a long time ago (before we had page protection logs), so feel free to update the page (yes it's a bit of a mess at the moment). Perhaps we should move all the old budget information to /Archive or at least collapse it so that only the most relevant information is one there if we are going to be using it to discuss this plan?
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.
SJ
Well, the biggest blocker would be that the WMF wiki is private.
For editing, that is. I have what I presume to be my obituary on the wiki: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Kpeterzell
Yes, this is broken. The wiki should be public to editing, at the very least in every namespace but the main one. (And probably there too. We know how to keep publicly editable websites looking shiny :)
To return to the original thread, and to Anne's comments:
The Budget page hasn't been edited since 2009 until now; it's good to see that changing. [If the wmfwiki were opened to collaborative updates, it would be fine to replace it with a cross-wiki redirect. But for now that's not possible.]
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
Ok. I've posted a couple of questions there for the WMF to answer regarding the GAC and FDC.
Samuel Klein wrote:
I know a few people would like to see the talk namespaces of wikimediafoundation.org opened up to general discussion, but that's a bit tricky with raw HTML being allowed there.
This shouldn't be a blocker. Disallow raw HTML on talk pages? Simply restrict editing to a higher 'autoconfirmed' standard?
I would like to see your ideas on how to do this; it seems like a good idea.
Trying to get me motivated? Tsk, tsk.
Raw HTML is just one piece of the puzzle. A lot of other hacks and customizations have been built in to the site over the years with the bedrock principle that account creation is restricted there. I'd like to see at least the talk namespaces opened up as well. I laid out my thoughts here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Liberating_wikimediafoundation.org.
For those interested, there's discussion on the talk page about how to best implement this idea.
MZMcBride
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the WMF please answer the questions that are on that page?
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page?
I'll ask Tilman via this mail to help coordinate getting answers from the appropriate people.
Separately/additionally: I thought the Signpost coverage was pretty good. It wasn't extensive, but I thought they did a good job of capturing the basics in what is a pretty complex plan. This year is a tough slog understanding the financials, because the assumptions underpinning them (about how revenue is reflected, and spending) have changed significantly with the creation of the FDC. We tried to create apples-to-apples comparisons, and to caveat appropriately where that wasn't possible, but it's inherently pretty complex.
Thanks, Sue On Aug 1, 2012 4:35 AM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the WMF please answer the questions that are on that page?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo.
Thanks, Sue
Hi, folks.
I've also tried to address the (truly confusing) use of the word "grants" across the plan. See here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimedia_Grants_budget
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions:
maybe
I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
Yep, got it, thanks. There are some questions that Garfield and Asaf have already answered -- I will take a look later today and see what remains. I think there's one outstanding from you, and one from Nemo.
Thanks, Sue
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 28 July 2012 04:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
$42.1 million? you could almost buy an olympic opening ceremony for that.
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Jul 29, 2012 3:33 AM, "Béria Lima" berialima@gmail.com wrote:
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke.
It's not a very large increase on last year. It's a little tricky to make sure you are comparing like with like given the new way of treating chapter revenues and spending, but I think the right number to compare with is $39.2m. An increase to $46.1m is an 18% increase. That's tiny compared to the growth we've seen in previous years.
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
It's not a very large increase on last year. It's a little tricky to make sure you are comparing like with like given the new way of treating chapter revenues and spending, but I think the right number to compare with is $39.2m. An increase to $46.1m is an 18% increase. That's tiny compared to the growth we've seen in previous years.
It also tracks fairly closely to the strategy ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spr...), page 16.
pb (who had no active role in the design of this year's plan, but did in the design of the strategy) ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Jul 29, 2012 3:45 AM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan)
The plan does seem to be missing the details on revenue... Isn't there normally a slide breaking down revenue into fundraiser, grants, major gifts, earned income, etc? (See slide 49 of last year's plan.)
Actually, on looking a bit more closely, it appears that the Engineering core positions include those that are intended to support non-core activities. That doesn't really add up; they should also be non-core.
I also note that a lot of the activities in the strategic plan are considered non-core. That seems to put the strategic plan at significant risk.
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 22:45, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published
at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan) Absent that, I'm not seeing how all those new positions (particularly the 30 in Engineering) will be paid for.
Note that this question has now been answered at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#April-June_2013_revenu...
Risker/Anne
On 28 July 2012 22:32, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a joke. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 28 July 2012 00:58, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published
at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
Just a small point....
I'm curious how the proposed $255,000 for Wikimania travel for staff, board, advisory board and volunteers compares with what was actually spent this year?
In the 2011-2012 plan, I see that $96,000 was proposed. While the travel costs for SF staff to DC are much less, I find this too low and hard to believe. Some more details and breakdown by scholarships vs. staff/board/advisory board would be nice.
I'm curious if we are planning a higher number of scholarships for volunteers for next year? (as the overall WMF budget increases) and how many staff are we planning to send next year?
Cheers, Katie
-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, aude aude.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
Just a small point....
I'm curious how the proposed $255,000 for Wikimania travel for staff, board, advisory board and volunteers compares with what was actually spent this year?
In the 2011-2012 plan, I see that $96,000 was proposed. While the travel costs for SF staff to DC are much less, I find this too low and hard to believe. Some more details and breakdown by scholarships vs. staff/board/advisory board would be nice.
I'm curious if we are planning a higher number of scholarships for volunteers for next year? (as the overall WMF budget increases) and how many staff are we planning to send next year?
Cheers, Katie
Note that some (or most) of these questions have now been addressed at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget .
On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:58 PM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_...
accompanied by a Q&A:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...
The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees at its meeting in Washington, DC, at Wikimania, and previously outlined to the Foundation staff and interested community members at the monthly staff meeting on July 5, 2012. We were planning to publish the video recording of that meeting at this point, but encountered technical difficulties; the video will hopefully become available soon.
My biggest question mark over this plan is the GAC. In some slides the GAC money is combined with fellowships, in some it is combined with FDC money, and in another slide the GAC money awarded to chapters is pulled out separately without ever commenting on whether all GAC awards were to chapters or if there were additional awards to other entities (awards to chapters is set to decrease 40%).
It seems to me despite the WMF's stated confidence, that the FDC allocating money to WMF for the GAC is somewhat questionable. Given that the WMF has failed, so far, to show a capacity for properly administering the existing grants by providing a timely reviews. Although I can also see how the political nature of the situation wrt the FDC would tend to pull for the GAC money being approved no matter how competent or not the *SF* side of the program proves to be. And that whole aspect of the GAC program is probably a good part if the explanation of why there was not adequate support from SF to complete the reviews. The GAC program is just not commonly seen as being beneficial to SF, but as beneficial to the chapters and affiliates. And however much the WMF tries (and I think it is making large strides!) to re-adjust the institutional paradigm from SF to Movement, the resourcing is still telling. So when I said above that I thought outcome at FDC questionable, I mean that I haven't even slightest clue of what odds to place on the outcome. After considering both the principles of the FDC will and the context of the GAC, it ends up being a rather arbitrary choice to my mind. Which is a very unfortunate puzzle to pass like a hot potato to the rookie FDC.
So I am very curious how much money the WMF plans on distributing through the GAC, whether it is significantly different than last year. And also if there has been a projection made for the number of grants in new fiscal year. And if so, whether the projection takes in to account that the number grants made in the past year overwhelmed WMF's capacity to manage its portion of the administration.
And to give you what I am driving at, are these projections landing at numbers where the WMF could find alternate funding for the GAC program this year? Is possible to take a year and demonstrate that WMF has the will to resource this program into competence before placing it in the FDC pile?
Birgitte SB
On 29 July 2012 15:17, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
It seems to me despite the WMF's stated confidence, that the FDC allocating money to WMF for the GAC is somewhat questionable. Given that the WMF has failed, so far, to show a capacity for properly administering the existing grants by providing a timely reviews.
There obviously needs to be a grants programme for individuals and entities that can't or don't want to go through the FDC. Whether that is run by the WMF or not will presumably depend on who applies with the best proposal.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org