[Foundation-l] Policy governance ends

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Anthony wrote:

>On 4/16/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>For instance, in a worst-case scenario that there is only limited funds to
>>adequately cover server costs/bandwidth or wikimania, it remains for the board
>>to decide whether it should forego one, or alternately, split costs and do a
>>half-assed job with both. By the way, this isn't so far from the truth.
>>    
>>
>
>Really?  Could you elaborate on that, or do you feel that it'd be a
>breach of confidentiality to do so?
>
>Shouldn't Wikimania pay for itself?  I could see an argument
>otherwise, but I'd say it should.  Ant also suggests that it should.
>
>  
>
>>That said, I would say that the foremost "end" is financial sustainability.
>>    
>>
>
>That seems to me to be a means, not an end.  Although I'd disagree
>with Ant in that I'd say the same thing about Wikimania.  But maybe
>I'm misunderstanding her email.
>
>Anthony
>
>
>  
>
Some of the concerns voiced here reflect external perceptions of 
industry observers and have left a lot of folks with the impression of
instability in the organization, wether true or not. The next 
fundraisier will really determine where things are at in reality. After
reviewing and discussing with other participants in our venture, we will 
continue to support Wikimedia both logistically and
financially. I am sure most of its supporters feel the same way.

In other words, there is not reason for panic on a lot of these issues 
until after the next fundraiser.

Jeff