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
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.