Those of you not on Foundation-l might be interested to see this post from Ting, the chair of the Foundation board, which has some important implications for the development of Wikimedia UK in future.
Regards,
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ting Chen tchen@wikimedia.org Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to announce the following three resolutions
1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency: http://wikimediafoundation.** org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_**Trustees_Voting_Transparencyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency 1) Fundraising 2012: http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Resolution:** Fundraising_2012http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 2) Funds Dissemination Committee: http://wikimediafoundation.** org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_**Committeehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
For those of you who are currently in Berlin, we will have a 2 hour window tomorrow to discuss this together, we invite you to send questions for this session to Harel Cain (<harel.cain@gmail.com mailto:harel.cain@gmail.com>* *) He will be moderating tomorrow's session which will be similar to the Q&A session we had in Paris.
We are currently working on a Question and Answer document which we will publish as soon as possible.
Although the decision has now been made, we have a large number of challenges ahead of us and I hope that we as a movement will come together to make the Funds Dissemination Committee a success by working with us to come up with answers tot the questions that we still have and helping to make it work!
Could somebody concisely explain what this certainly means for WMUK, and what it might mean in the worst- and best-case scenarios? I understand the issues, and I'm sure the nuances are still being worked out, but I can't be the only person wondering.
Harry
________________________________ From: Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 30 March 2012, 22:50 Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
Those of you not on Foundation-l might be interested to see this post from Ting, the chair of the Foundation board, which has some important implications for the development of Wikimedia UK in future.
Regards,
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ting Chen tchen@wikimedia.org Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to announce the following three resolutions
1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Tran... 1) Fundraising 2012: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 2) Funds Dissemination Committee: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
For those of you who are currently in Berlin, we will have a 2 hour window tomorrow to discuss this together, we invite you to send questions for this session to Harel Cain (<harel.cain@gmail.com mailto:harel.cain@gmail.com>) He will be moderating tomorrow's session which will be similar to the Q&A session we had in Paris.
We are currently working on a Question and Answer document which we will publish as soon as possible.
Although the decision has now been made, we have a large number of challenges ahead of us and I hope that we as a movement will come together to make the Funds Dissemination Committee a success by working with us to come up with answers tot the questions that we still have and helping to make it work!
On 31 March 2012 21:26, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Could somebody concisely explain what this certainly means for WMUK, and what it might mean in the worst- and best-case scenarios? I understand the issues, and I'm sure the nuances are still being worked out, but I can't be the only person wondering.
While I'm no longer closely involved in WMUK, I have been very involved with the discussions that led up to this resolution, so I'll have a go at explaining it.
It means that, in the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 fundraisers, WMUK will be allowed to place banners on the WMF websites as long as it can convince Sue Gardner than it satisfies the following criteria:
1) There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical effort. 2) The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local donors. 3) Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved. 4) The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work. 5) The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract donors.
I don't think there can be any argument on points 1, 2 and 4. (Although point 4 is a very strange one, given that we're supposed to be moving any from any connection between where money is raised and where it is spent...)
Point 3 has caused some issues in the past, but I think they are all resolved now. Someone on the current board can confirm the current situation there.
Point 5 shouldn't be a problem. Jon Davies, with the support of the board, is putting a lot of effort into making sure all appropriate safeguards are in place.
So, in conclusion, I'm fairly confident WMUK will participate in those fundraisers. There is a slight concern that Sue will be biased by her own opinion that chapters shouldn't be fundraising at all, but I don't think we'll have a real problem there.
Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to fundraise. It is also possible that the decision will be re-evaluated before 2016, especially as the membership of the board can be expected to change (the 2 chapter selected seats will be filled this summer and the 3 community elected seats will be filled next summer).
There is also going to be a substantial change in how the money raised is allocated. A new committee is being formed that will review the budget proposals from the WMF (excluding their core spending), chapters and anyone else that wants large amounts of money (smaller grants will continue to be made by the WMF and chapters) and decide who will get what amount of money. Any money WMUK raises in excess of the amount the committee decides it should get (not including money raised in ways other than the annual fundraiser - that money is completely under WMUK's control), will be donated to the WMF (or directly to other chapters and organisations that it has been allocated to, that hasn't been worked out yet).
Status quo for a few years. What happened at Coventry today what really counts. Hope it went well. Status quo for a few years. What happened at Coventry today what really counts. Hope it went well. </div> Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Sender: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:53:49 To: HJ Mitchellhjmitchell@ymail.com; wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 21:26, HJ Mitchell hjmitchell@ymail.com wrote:
Could somebody concisely explain what this certainly means for WMUK, and what it might mean in the worst- and best-case scenarios? I understand the issues, and I'm sure the nuances are still being worked out, but I can't be the only person wondering.
While I'm no longer closely involved in WMUK, I have been very involved with the discussions that led up to this resolution, so I'll have a go at explaining it.
It means that, in the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 fundraisers, WMUK will be allowed to place banners on the WMF websites as long as it can convince Sue Gardner than it satisfies the following criteria:
1) There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the logistical effort. 2) The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to local donors. 3) Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved. 4) The organization's current financial resources are not enough to fund proposed program work. 5) The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that their donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency principles will be met, and that spending will be in line with our mission and with the messages used to attract donors.
I don't think there can be any argument on points 1, 2 and 4. (Although point 4 is a very strange one, given that we're supposed to be moving any from any connection between where money is raised and where it is spent...)
Point 3 has caused some issues in the past, but I think they are all resolved now. Someone on the current board can confirm the current situation there.
Point 5 shouldn't be a problem. Jon Davies, with the support of the board, is putting a lot of effort into making sure all appropriate safeguards are in place.
So, in conclusion, I'm fairly confident WMUK will participate in those fundraisers. There is a slight concern that Sue will be biased by her own opinion that chapters shouldn't be fundraising at all, but I don't think we'll have a real problem there.
Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to fundraise. It is also possible that the decision will be re-evaluated before 2016, especially as the membership of the board can be expected to change (the 2 chapter selected seats will be filled this summer and the 3 community elected seats will be filled next summer).
There is also going to be a substantial change in how the money raised is allocated. A new committee is being formed that will review the budget proposals from the WMF (excluding their core spending), chapters and anyone else that wants large amounts of money (smaller grants will continue to be made by the WMF and chapters) and decide who will get what amount of money. Any money WMUK raises in excess of the amount the committee decides it should get (not including money raised in ways other than the annual fundraiser - that money is completely under WMUK's control), will be donated to the WMF (or directly to other chapters and organisations that it has been allocated to, that hasn't been worked out yet).
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 31 March 2012 21:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to fundraise.
Has anyone managed to get solid criteria on this as yet?
It is also possible that the decision will be re-evaluated before 2016, especially as the membership of the board can be expected to change (the 2 chapter selected seats will be filled this summer and the 3 community elected seats will be filled next summer).
Every five-year plan is actually a six-month plan, yes.
- d.
On 31 March 2012 22:17, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 21:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to fundraise.
Has anyone managed to get solid criteria on this as yet?
I haven't. We've been promised a Q&A explaining the WMF board's decisions in more detail. I'm hoping that will contain the solid criteria.
Good to see the UK and three other chapters can still fundraise via the annual fundraiser. Bad to see that they are still following their centralisation agenda and limiting it to just those four chapters for the next three years. I'm curious about the motion on dissemination, I think this may be difficult to reconcile with our charitable status. But hopefully that can be resolved by the board of WMUK pointing out that in at least our case the community has to accept that some money will be under decentralised control however much that goes against the wishes of the WMF.
I wouldn't worry about possible further centralisation after 2016, by then the pendulum will have swung and centralisation will be out of favour. The movement is by its nature global and decentralised, you can't work against the grain for long before that reality hits you.
On a broader note I would suggest that the UK prioritise longterm funding streams - payroll giving, and annual direct debits which may have a lower attrition rate than monthly direct debits. Longer term we should think about legacies. One of the flaws of the movement's current fundraising model is the disconnect between our longterm ambitions and the short term nature of our fundraising. I suspect that has already become an issue with the GLAM sector. It would be really cool if in three years time we could say "yes we've only existed for fourteen years, but even if all else went phut tomorrow we already have an endowed data centre that could maintain a read only version on the web for the foreseeable future."
WSC
On 30 March 2012 22:50, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Those of you not on Foundation-l might be interested to see this post from Ting, the chair of the Foundation board, which has some important implications for the development of Wikimedia UK in future.
Regards,
Chris
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ting Chen tchen@wikimedia.org Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to announce the following three resolutions
- Board of Trustees Voting Transparency: http://wikimediafoundation.**
org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_**Trustees_Voting_Transparencyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
- Fundraising 2012: http://wikimediafoundation.**org/wiki/Resolution:**
Fundraising_2012http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 2) Funds Dissemination Committee: http://wikimediafoundation.** org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_**Committeehttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
For those of you who are currently in Berlin, we will have a 2 hour window tomorrow to discuss this together, we invite you to send questions for this session to Harel Cain (<harel.cain@gmail.com <mailto:harel.cain@gmail.com
**) He will be moderating tomorrow's session which will be similar to
the Q&A session we had in Paris.
We are currently working on a Question and Answer document which we will publish as soon as possible.
Although the decision has now been made, we have a large number of challenges ahead of us and I hope that we as a movement will come together to make the Funds Dissemination Committee a success by working with us to come up with answers tot the questions that we still have and helping to make it work!
-- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tchen@wikimedia.org
There's a bit more context from the Foundation Board Q&A at the Chapters meeting, here: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmcon12-day2-board-chapters
I am very pleased that we now have this issue settled. The argument that we collectively made to the Foundation was that we would be able to raise more money for the movement by continuing to participate in the fundraiser (mainly, but not only, via Gift Aid) and also that we would be better able to build relationships with donors, broaden our sources of funding, and potentially involve donors in editing, outreach or other aspects of our work. Wikimedia UK now has the chance to do some great things, which I'm really looking forward to!
The amount of energy this issue has consumed over the last 8 months has been immense - for me particularly, but also for many other people on the Board (and also for the Foundation and other chapters). While it's never going to go away completely, we I think this solution will work. It's a shame that the Foundation decided to decide on the arbitrary inclusion of 4 chapters rather than setting a threshold - this is not what we wanted or what we were arguing for - but this solution is definitely better than continuing arguments...
Also, it's worth pointing out that there are two other positive outcomes of this process. Firstly the Foundation - in particular the Board - is becoming more transparent, particularly about how different Board members view different debates. Secondly, the Chapters Council has the potential to be a major step forward, and that has only gained momentum because of the ongoing fundraising debate...
*starts writing 2012 fundraising strategy*
Regards,
Chris Wikimedia UK board
Chris
On 1 April 2012 12:28, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.comwrote:
<snip>
I wouldn't worry about possible further centralisation after 2016, by then
the pendulum will have swung and centralisation will be out of favour. The movement is by its nature global and decentralised, you can't work against the grain for long before that reality hits you.
There is a lot to that remark. But in any case, the "hot potato" will have
gone tepid by then: the chapters who really want to qualify and have not done so far will presumably have been dealing with the WMF. Enough detailed grant negotiations with staff in San Francisco, and issues of principle may come seem less central than working the system effectively. (Hey, I think that happened onsite ... didn't it? Historically.)
Charles
On 01/04/2012 12:28, WereSpielChequers wrote:
On a broader note I would suggest that the UK prioritise longterm funding streams - payroll giving, and annual direct debits which may have a lower attrition rate than monthly direct debits. Longer term we should think about legacies. One of the flaws of the movement's current fundraising model is the disconnect between our longterm ambitions and the short term nature of our fundraising. I suspect that has already become an issue with the GLAM sector. It would be really cool if in three years time we could say "yes we've only existed for fourteen years, but even if all else went phut tomorrow we already have an endowed data centre that could maintain a read only version on the web for the foreseeable future."
Maybe an issue for your (our) next Wikimeet?
Also - "Wikimedia Commons" vs "Archives for All" - where should you lodge copies of your data?
Gordo
Agree
On Monday, 2 April 2012, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 01/04/2012 12:28, WereSpielChequers wrote:
On a broader note I would suggest that the UK prioritise longterm
funding streams - payroll giving, and annual direct debits which may have a lower attrition rate than monthly direct debits. Longer term we should think about legacies. One of the flaws of the movement's current fundraising model is the disconnect between our longterm ambitions and the short term nature of our fundraising. I suspect that has already become an issue with the GLAM sector. It would be really cool if in three years time we could say "yes we've only existed for fourteen years, but even if all else went phut tomorrow we already have an endowed data centre that could maintain a read only version on the web for the foreseeable future."
Maybe an issue for your (our) next Wikimeet?
Also - "Wikimedia Commons" vs "Archives for All" - where should you lodge
copies of your data?
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com http://www.joly.org.uk/ Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Monday, 2 April 2012 at 08:54, Gordon Joly wrote:
Also - "Wikimedia Commons" vs "Archives for All" - where should you lodge copies of your data?
Both, and more. Archiving today is a distribution problem, not a trust problem. Make it copyleft/PD, make it easily moveable, let people replicate it and spread it.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org