[Foundation-l] Christmas lull

[GerardM]

Hoi,
Anthere may I congratulate you and in you all of us who feel ourselves to be
part of the Wikimedia Foundation with a great 2006. I hope the progress that
we have seen will continue in 2007 and make it as special as this year was.
Thanks,
    GerardM

PS we can and will have more fundraisers :)

On 12/31/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Tim Starling wrote:
> >
> http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png
> >
> > The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling
> > week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued
> > throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now
> > than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might
> > not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a
> > couple of weeks.
> >
> > -- Tim Starling
>
>
> If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks sooner", I must emphasize
> we expected to start the fundraising *sooner* than it actually started.
> We were delayed first by the audit (we absolutely wanted to be able to
> show financial results and a general budget along with the fundraising
> call).
> We were also delayed one more week, because technical details were not
> ready (if I remember well, crm was not entirely set up, site notice was
> not done at all, no agreement made with matching donors, the very cool
> fundraising website was not done yet, no press release had been written
> etc...).
> In short, we were not ready.
> Two weeks sooner would have been cool, but we just *did not have* the
> resources to make that happen. No use "wondering" if that would have
> been better. It was just not possible.
>
>
> If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks later", this was
> envisionned and much discussed; On one hand we wanted to give donors the
> opportunity to make a donation in year 2006, for tax deductibility
> purposes. On the other hand, the cash available was getting low. So, we
> decided to move on anyway.
>
>
> As for the realistic amount... let us be realistic. We have two main
> options.
> Either we give no goals. People see the money flow in, and are
> reassured. They think "oh, that's cool, they have enough money and we
> will not see any fundraising before a long time".
> And on our side, we despair in silence. Because we know we will proceed
> with a strict economy of sort.
>
> Or we give a goal. Or hint there is a goal. And perhaps reach it,
> perhaps do not reach it.
> If we do not reach, it is kinda easy to say "this goal were irrealistic,
> how stupid it was to set up such a goal".
>
>
> From my point of view, I prefer you to think we are irrealistic, but to
> realise that if we do not have enough money, then we will not have
> enough money to function properly. That may mean delay to purchase
> servers (hence, poor service to readers and editors). That may mean less
> developers (hence, no development of much needed features). That may
> mean less legal support (hence, additional delay when you are waiting
> for a contractual agreement to publish a DVD, or no help if you are a
> chapter and want support to retrieve a cybersquatted domain). That may
> mean no big meeting to work on the future of mediawiki. That may mean
> letting people abuse our trademarks, because we have no mean to go after
> abusers.
>
>
> Well, I prefer that we set up a goal that appears irrealistic, but which
> is nevertheless what we need. If we fail that goal, at least, I can
> explain why the Foundation will not pay a developer to work on
> reviewed-versions, or why the Foundation will not pay the travel of
> people to go to the next chapter meeting. These are examples. We can set
> up the priorities, and only fund the priorities. With much regrets for
> the other cool things we could do :-)
>
> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>