Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com a écrit :
For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on
one
side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on
one
side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other side, there is always a little mystery about the role and interests of the people commenting.
While some posters point out that they speak in a personal capacity, few offer a disclosure about their personal interests in the funding debate... but I would find it both enlightening and interesting if those expressing opinions about budgets would disclose whether they receive a salary or other financial benefit (including travel, conference fees, etc.) from the WMF.
I would like to know, without further research, if someone arguing that chapters should get more money is dependent on a salary drawn from that pool of money. Since the list archives form a public record and not all list subscribers know everyone else, it would be very helpful if posters considered including this kind of a disclosure in posts where it may be meaningful.
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or Foundation. In short, we do the work we do here for free.
In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed out of "movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our presence in an official capacity is deemed useful.
Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind of financial benefit.
Best,
Delphine (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.comwrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or Foundation. In short, we do the work we do here for free.
In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed out of "movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our presence in an official capacity is deemed useful.
Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind of financial benefit.
Best,
Delphine (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally assume that a conflict exists.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally assume that a conflict exists.
Oops, excuse me, I meant Ebber. Sorry for the error!
Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All
of
us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or
Foundation. In
short, we do the work we do here for free.
In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed
out of
"movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our
presence
in an official capacity is deemed useful.
Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind
of
financial benefit.
Best,
Delphine (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without
at
all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are
anything
but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts
when
discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally assume that a conflict exists.
Ah I see. So I suppose, following your line of thought, that any and all of the wikimedia staff (all organisations included) involved in any part of the fundraising should attach some kind of disclaimer about how they "benefit" from the work they're paid to do? Since, after all, they're working to raise money that *will* pay their salary.
This might prove an interesting thing to implement.
Delphine
Ah I see. So I suppose, following your line of thought, that any and all of the wikimedia staff (all organisations included) involved in any part of the fundraising should attach some kind of disclaimer about how they "benefit" from the work they're paid to do? Since, after all, they're working to raise money that *will* pay their salary.
This might prove an interesting thing to implement.
Delphine
If they are engaged in public advocacy on how funds should be raised and distributed, then yes, I would like to see them disclose (whether in this setting, or on blog posts, or comments to journalists or etc.) that they are employed by the WMF. This is fairly conventional in many fields - disclosure is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, it's just providing relevant information to your audience.
I think perhaps this "financial benefit" discussion has taken us a bit off track. This thread has a wealth of well-informed commentary, the majority of it coming from volunteers; for most, any "financial" benefit is the result of expenses being (partially) covered to carry out these volunteer activities.
Perhaps the point that Nathan might be trying to make is that it is useful for everyone involved in these wide-ranging discussions to understand each other's relative experience. For example, it would be helpful to interpret Cynthia's and Lodewijk's comments knowing that they are members of the Affiliations Committee. That is not to suggest that their opinions should be discounted; in fact, quite the opposite. They are opinions that have been informed by the fact of their committee membership, although of course they are speaking for themselves and not the committee as a whole. I will note as an aside that I was aware they were both on some relevant committee, but it took some digging to figure out which one.
Similarly, those who hold executive roles with chapters, or are members of the FDC or other global or local groups that would be affected by these decisions, are able to share their knowledge from those experiences.
Risker/Anne
I agree this has gotten us off-track. I generally try to at least acknowledge my roles and conflicts in at least a PS - although I sometimes forget.
All of that said, it seems this sidetrack happened because there was a sense some people were concerned about the cap because they want more money or may subconsciously have that motive. I think that's oversimplifies people's concerns.
I would suggest if the disclaimer conversation does not feel resolved, it be taken to a new thread.
-greg aka varnent PS. Views and opinions do not reflect any of my AffCom or WM related roles.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps this "financial benefit" discussion has taken us a bit off track. This thread has a wealth of well-informed commentary, the majority of it coming from volunteers; for most, any "financial" benefit is the result of expenses being (partially) covered to carry out these volunteer activities.
Perhaps the point that Nathan might be trying to make is that it is useful for everyone involved in these wide-ranging discussions to understand each other's relative experience. For example, it would be helpful to interpret Cynthia's and Lodewijk's comments knowing that they are members of the Affiliations Committee. That is not to suggest that their opinions should be discounted; in fact, quite the opposite. They are opinions that have been informed by the fact of their committee membership, although of course they are speaking for themselves and not the committee as a whole. I will note as an aside that I was aware they were both on some relevant committee, but it took some digging to figure out which one.
Similarly, those who hold executive roles with chapters, or are members of the FDC or other global or local groups that would be affected by these decisions, are able to share their knowledge from those experiences.
Risker/Anne
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org