8 working hours per day, and 24 available hours a day, yes it should be possible for one person... 8D John Jon skrev:

3 people, each working a 8 hrs day (ish) would mean that technically it could be done by one person mark On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Jon <scream(a)datascreamer.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: Spend $1 to make $5. Fundraising is a special case, in that each new hire would be expected to directly lead to additional income far exceeding their salary. While there would be a point of diminishing returns, I don't think 3 hires is at that point. Also, keep in mind that even though the fund drives have done well in absolute terms (e.g. $2 million in the last one), there have been very substantial portions of those efforts that were rushed or outright mismanaged. Taking fundraising more seriously should offer the opportunity for substantial improvments. I'm glad to see the Foundation taking these steps. -Robert Rohde

I think we're far to early to pass judgment over whether the 3 positions are cost effective without a) knowing the salaries, which I doubt we will, and b) seeing how well they perform, and c) actually hiring anyone yet. -Dan On Apr 17, 2008, at 9:52 PM, George Herbert wrote:

I don't disagree with you. Though I think that starting with one and slowly work their way might be an alternative, I don't see anything wrong with three fundraising staff members. I'm just saying we don't even have them yet, so it's a bit early to speculate on them. -Dan On Apr 17, 2008, at 10:08 PM, George Herbert wrote:

Since you've explicitly named me, I'll chip in. I'm surprised that the foundation is hiring so many more people so soon, but doing so is a simple business decision and I'm confident Sue is more than qualified to make it. The issues the foundation faces with respect to transparency are rather unique, so I doubt anyone on the staff or board has much experience with them - for that reason, I'm not willing to blindly trust them. I'm sure they are all acting in good faith, but that doesn't mean they're right.

I asked some questions as well. If you ask me to assume good faith on part of the Foundation, I ask you to assume good faith of me as well. -Chad On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Jon <scream(a)datascreamer.com> wrote:

Nathan wrote: Nathan, We can ask, and it can be explained, there is nothing wrong with this. Anyone who donates anything, (money, time, et cetera) become interested in *some* areas of the foundation. And I think it is ok, ok to ask sometimes. The board members or staff likely did not even answer, the list readership would have been happy to explain, and appeared happy to explain. I was not sending any staff/board member to barbecue. I think your suggestion here, is outside the mission of the list. I would venture to say, that you are 'getting on to us' for something that is encouraged. Discussion of foundation issues. Please reconsider your requests to the members of *this* list. Very best, Jon

On 18/04/2008, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: In theory, we're not spending anything on the new hires - they're meant to be making money, not costing it. It may take some time for them to get going, so it might cost a bit at first, but only in the short term.

If I read pointless discussions like some of the recent ones on this list, I think that it might be good to set up such a list anyway... Jay/Cary, could you consider whether that would be useful? It would offer a news source for people who are willing to hear the news, but not the endless discussions on some topics :) (I would still prefer this list, but others might not) BR, Lodewijk 2008/4/18, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>om>:

Dan Rosenthal wrote: For the major gifts position and the community giving position we're looking for a rather different set of skills, because the approaches required are quite distinct. The skillsets aren't likely to overlap much in one person, so it doesn't make sense to try to shoehorn responsibility for both into the first plausible candidate. That is in a sense the staffing approach that has gotten Wikimedia into no end of problems in the past. I expect Sue may fill one or another of these positions more quickly, depending on the applicant pool. But effectively moving forward with a diversified fundraising strategy requires all of them in the end. --Michael Snow

I'll try and explain. On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote: Community giving (and as I understand, it was quite hard to actually find a "name" for that position), refers to the people, readers, editors, contributors, friends who have helped our projects (primarily with money, since we already have a volunteer coordinator :-)). The idea is that Wikimedia is, to some extent unusual, in that the greater part of its fundraising happens online for one, and also mainly comes from "small donors" like you and I. However, you will grant me that "Head of "small donors" somehow does not sound as good. Basically, we don't know most of our supporters, why they support us, why they would continue to support us and why they would stop supporting us. I do believe that this position, which in the first part will dedicate to understanding our donors and in the second will help develop the right communication(s) towards them, is an essential part of our fundraising strategy. So, no, the "community" in this job description is not "the community of editing contributors" but rather the "community of supporters who support in their own little way". Community is a term that refers to more than just "our community", there are lots of "communities" out there and we need to talk to/with them about how they can best support us. Of course, I agree with you. I hope that chapters and active local communities/editors will get to work closely with the people in these new positions in order to share their knowledge, cultural awareness and help them choose the best strategies for effective fundraising. I am sure that bar a few succesful countries, Wikimedia as a whole still needs to work a lot on localizing its base support. Cheers, Delphine -- ~notafish http://blog.notanendive.org NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.

This reminds me a talk which I had with a researcher and FLOSS guy recently. He said he hesitated to think himself as a Wikipedian, despite of his occasional editing on Wikipedia (I forgot either as an anon or a registered user). I asked why, and he replied "I don't commit Wikipedia so much. I haven't contributed (money, in this context) to the project". He continued he thought he could call himself as a supporter of FSF, since he regularly contributed to. I explained we rather thought (registered) editors as Wikipedians (or whatever) and donation is no sole form of contribution, but I found this idea interesting and very excited to see the idea to cultivate the community of donors. Cheers, In Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

Andrew Gray wrote: Agree here, and this is expected as the foundation grows. There would need to be a separation of duties, these duties, are so different, and would be demanding. Jon