On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the Foundation's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures). Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent job.

I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take into account.

However, the decision to not have the firm a matching donor was more technical. They will not be called matching donor, but they will still give a hand. So there is no loss of support.

On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the community can, to an extent, heal. I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing.

GerardM and community I do agree with your view. I also think that lack of funds is a serious issue and I don't thank the opposition to have achieved not doing more matching donations this fundraiser. I do disagree with you that there is no serious alternative. There is and it is brought up in a separate thread by Teun Spaans ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-January/026545.html). It is a separate project aimed at publishing fanstuff with adds (which is now part a popular part of every Wikipedia), so that the other projects can do without adds and we still have money to fund all projects and indeed expand on some further ideas. I don't understand that not more persons seem to be willing to judge on this idea? I don't care if thorough consideration will have a negative outcome, if there would be enough reason no to have a Fanpedia, but it is an alternative!! And until know it seems to be discarded. Please think about it and comment on that idea, it is worth considering. It seems that Wikia is doing good with this way of funding. Kind regards Londenp 2007/1/7, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>: > Oldak Quill schreef: > >> On 07/01/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Oldak Quill schreef: >>> >>> >>>> On 07/01/07, Florence Devouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone. >>>>> >>>>> Just for a head up (or down) >>>>> >>>>> First, I wanted to announce to all that there will be no more >>>>> > matching > >>>>> donors in that fundraiser. >>>>> This is due to a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, >>>>> > the > >>>>> reaction of some members in the community. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Regardless of whether I agreed with the Virgin notice or not, this is >>>> an excellent move on behalf of the Foundation. It demonstrates the >>>> Foundatin's responsiveness to Wikimedians and that there is no >>>> bureaucratic disconnect (which is always a worry when a project like >>>> ours begins to organise into formalised institutions and structures). >>>> >>>> Thanks Florence and the rest of the team. You're doing an excellent >>>> > job. > >>>> >>>> >>> Hoi, >>> I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you >>> only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited >>> funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !" >>> >>> This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or >>> > will > >>> not happen in the near future for lack of funds. There have been no >>> serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. >>> And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed >>> best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current >>> > funding. > >>> In my opinion this is at best a Pyrrhic victory. >>> >>> >> IMO, the lack of funds is *not* a good thing. But that doesn't remove >> from the perceived responsiveness of the Foundation. It seems to me >> that the community was damaged/divided by the discussion last week: >> there were alot of very emotive mails exchanged on this list. For this >> reason, I think it was crucial that the Foundation demonstrate >> responsiveness even at the cost of some funding. In doing so, the >> community can, to an extent, heal. >> >> I think that just announcing that that no matching donors would be >> named in the SiteNotice would have been enough (I didn't object to the >> anonymous matching donor). Still, too much is better than nothing. >> > Hoi, > Well in my opinion the fact that people actually sabotaged the fund > raising is indeed damaging to our community. These people fail to > understand that the need for continually /more /funding is a function of > our growth. Where you see a community damaged/divided, I see a community > that was already divided. What I see is an organisation, our > organisation, that will increasingly find it problematic to balance its > books. An organisation that is not able to do the things it needs to do. > An organisations that as a consequence will be increasingly unable to > accommodate the growth that it could have. > > I disagree that our community will heal because of this temporary > reprieve. If anything it polarises the positions between those who want > to see the Foundation accept the money it can get and therefore do an > even better job and those that hold personal positions that have nothing > to do with the stated aims of our organisation. What has happened is > deferring the problem to the future, the sad thing is that the need for > money will only be bigger at that time and this will make the struggle > even more damaging. > > The fact that you do not consider the lack of funds a good thing makes > no material difference. It does not help as money would. > > Thanks, > GerardM

2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.

3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have.

4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved in Wikia might have an answer though.

5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.

This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with advertising on the projects. I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Oldak Quill schreef: Hoi, I am afraid you did not read the whole of Florence her e-mail, or you only read what you want to read.. "Fourth, we'll go on with limited funds. Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues. That's life !" This means that things that are deemed necessary will not happen or will not happen in the near future for lack of funds.

There have been no serious proposals on how the WMF can make the money that it requires. And where you see responsiveness, I fail to see how our aim is indeed best served when you consider our growth and our lack of current funding.

Anthony schreef: Hoi, Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the board will be postponed.

In my opinion it is unfair that you do not accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation is able to do.

It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back.

Anthony schreef: Hoi, I am sorry that this is not obvious to you. The Wikimedia Foundation has a budget. This budget includes what is deemed to be necessary. The WMF does not borrow money, so when there is not enough money for what the WMF plans to do, it cuts back to the bare essentials. It is quite elementary ...

Hoi, This is pure wishful thinking. What is intelligent in buying less expensive servers when our own developers recommend specific hardware. Do you really think that the specifications are in a way that cheaper alternatives do the same quality job? Mind you, our servers are pushed hard.

I think you badly underestimate the efforts that have gone into creating a budget when you call them "arbitrary goals". You assume that there is no planning, that no time was spend on what is needed for the Foundation and why.

Your observation that the effect on the Foundation of continually being underfunded is unclear is correct, that is something that only the future will learn, but how do we compare? You do not have to be Einstein to understand that things that are beneficial will not happen. I am also surprised that you think it will hold some "people" back. It holds US back; we are the Foundation, they are our efforts, it is our projects that will be held back.

When you mean that some people far away will be held back, then sure.. I do not want to argue what I think of that. The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently belittled.

This is made worse because no credible alternatives are provided that will help us raise funds in the future, a future that will only require more money.

Anthony schreef: Hoi, When this is your attitude, I will not bother to convince you. Because they are not your projects nor is it your foundation that we are talking about. I am also of the opinion that you just disqualified yourself to have relevance on the foundation-l. I am glad to associate myself with the Wikimedia Foundation even when I do not agree with all of the things it does.. However it provides a resource that is really important to me. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

As of the last audited financial report, the foundation was quite overfunded, not underfunded. If it is now underfunded, that is a new thing.

Our auditors recommanded to increase cash reserve to at least 3 ($875,000), preferrably 6 months ($1,650,000) of operating expenses for fiscal security.

Budget is rising quickly because we have more and more people coming looking at WP, so we need bigger bandwidth, because we need more people to help on MediaWiki as it is becoming more complex and we see more and more useful features missing, etc.

On 1/10/07, Jerome Banal <jerome.banal(a)gmail.com> wrote: Did you try it? Because I did several times, and I only just now figured out what must be going on. Monthly expense budget $75,500 Goals for bandwidth: ??? Right now the budget is $12,500. There are at least four different figures for the new "budget" (do you see why this can't be called a budget?). I see $50,000, $30,000, $62,000, $100,000, and $74,000 (which you get when you calculate $137,000-$75500+$12,500). So let's go with $74,000, and pretend it makes sense that bandwidth costs will go up sixfold? Goals for hosting and operations: $38,000. But then the calculation that is made acts as though this is in addition to the current $13,900. So let's call it $52,000 total. Hosting costs are expected to nearly quadruple, I guess. Goals for hiring: $100,000. Let's assume this means $100,000 in addition to the current goals. Now we get the magic $275,000 number. Am I getting this right? Is this the actual budget for the next fiscal year? Is there a reason this can't just be put in a normal form of a budget? Presumably, though I would also think it would be the immediate future, not 5 months in the future. I also still don't see a budget for FY '07-08. I see a bunch of "goals". So if the goal is to spend $275,000/month, I guess the budget will be to spend even more, in case the goal isn't reached. looking on Traffic is not going to quadruple (or increase 6-fold) in 5 months. It's taken about a year for it to merely double. it Except, I'm saying it wasn't diffused at that date. In fact, $900,000 is between the low and the high reserve, so it isn't even diffused at this date according to those numbers. it I haven't at least been able to heard about...huh? What are we talking about? Anthony _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> It would help to have a sitewide notice that acknowledges and supports our > strong open community, saying something like > "The Wikimedia projects are written and sustained by you, our readers and > editors. [[How you can help|Help us grow in 2007]]."

I would like to put that in the anon notice once the drive is over. We could even have a different message every day of the week via ((CURRENTDAYNAME}} magic.