[Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

[Gerard Meijssen]

Anthony schreef:
> On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Anthony schreef:
>>     
>>> Ant didn't say anything about the issues which were delayed being
>>> *necessary*.  Framing it that way seems unfair.
>>>
>>>       
>> Hoi,
>> Anthere is quiet explicit: "Limited means we'll go delaying certain
>> issues". It means that things that are deemed to be necessary by the
>> board will be postponed.
>>     
>
> Well, I don't see where you're getting the fact that those "things"
> were "deemed to be necessary by the board".
>   
Hoi,
I am sorry that this is not obvious to you. The Wikimedia Foundation has 
a budget. This budget includes what is deemed to be necessary. The WMF 
does not borrow money, so when there is not enough money for what the 
WMF plans to do, it cuts back to the bare essentials. It is quite 
elementary ...
>   
>> In my opinion it is unfair that you do not
>> accept that the lack of funding inhibits what the Wikimedia Foundation
>> is able to do.
>>     
>
> I do accept that.  Well, probably.  It's always possible that the lack
> of funding will instead cause the Wikimedia Foundation to spend its
> money more intelligently.  For instance, instead of continuing to
> acquire brand new $3000 servers they might instead choose to rent less
> expensive ones.  That wouldn't inhibit anything.  But that's more of
> wishful thinking than a real prediction.
>   
Hoi,

This is pure wishful thinking. What is intelligent in buying less 
expensive servers when our own developers recommend specific hardware. 
Do you really think that the specifications are in a way that cheaper 
alternatives do the same quality job? Mind you, our servers are pushed 
hard.
>> It is quite obvious that lack of funding is holding us back.
>>     
>
> "Lack of funding" (failure to reach an arbitrary goal) is certainly
> going to hold some people back from whatever it is they would have
> otherwise done with the money.  That's quite obvious.  What effect
> it's going to have on the foundation is much less clear.  In fact, it
> doesn't seem to have been decided just yet.
>
> Anthony
I think you badly underestimate the efforts that have gone into creating 
a budget when you call them "arbitrary goals". You assume that there is 
no planning, that no time was spend on what is needed for the Foundation 
and why. Your observation that the effect on the Foundation of 
continually being underfunded is unclear is correct, that is something 
that only the future will learn, but how do we compare? You do not have 
to be Einstein to understand that things that are beneficial will not 
happen. I am also surprised that you think it will hold some "people" 
back. It holds US back; we are the Foundation, they are our efforts, it 
is our projects that will be held back. When you mean that some people 
far away will be held back, then sure.. I do not want to argue what I 
think of that.

The problem is that the underfunding of the foundation is consistently 
belittled. This is made worse because no credible alternatives are 
provided that will help us raise funds in the future, a future that will 
only require more money.

Thanks,
    GerardM