Eclecticology wrote:

Those strike me as tainted sources for revenue. I would be suspicious of anything from them, and any potential strings attached. Sometimes sudden riches can be a more serious problem than being poor.

We just have to make sure we are very clear on what they want us to do or not do and weigh the pros and cons. No big deal. We can and should accept large grants so long as what the donor wants us to do is already consistent with what we want to do. If not, then we don't accept the grant - easy as that.

A provision that limits the amount that a person can contribute could protect the foundation from anyone who might come along and use his money to influence the direction of the foundation.

That assumes that there wouldn't be any decision making process in grant acceptance. A foundation isn't just a money accepting body it is also a decision making body with certain rules and by-laws. In short there are many things we can do to limit the potential of a large donor using money to mis-direct the project; just because somebody has cash doesn't mean we have to take it regardless of the conditions.

We already know Jimbo's approach to many issues, and we've mostly all accepted his Wiki philosophy. That does not guarantee that some new person won't come along and use money to convince us to take some direction.

We aren't stupid and won't take cash if that means we have to change the project for the worse.

I've raised budgetting before, because I see that as an issue that needs serious consideration. Once we know how much we need, we'll know how much to get from Wikipedians.

Why limit this to Wikipedians? We already donate a great deal of our time to the project and relying exclusively on Wikipedians is double dipping IMO. But I am sure that a not-insignificant amount of cash will still flow from Wikipedians though (I've already donated by purchasing several domain names, for example). But I do see a real point in making sure everything is set-up first before we start to solicit for grant money. So we can start with donations.

Some potential expenses can be dangerous. Paid staff can be a problem because they can have a conflict of interest between their personal well- being and the well-being of the foundation.

I don't understand your point here. Please explain how this is different than the relationship between an employee and the company he works for? Both have a mutual vested interest in succeeding. But that is purely academic since the only way we would be able to afford even one paid employee is to get a large grant. Donations just won't cut it alone for a very long time. Either way it will be some time before we are in a position of even considering paid staff.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com