[Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice
wikilegal at inbox.org
Tue Jan 9 15:04:29 UTC 2007
On 1/9/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".
> 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 ...
According to this budget, how many months can Wikimedia operate for $900,000?
What I see online is a wish list, not a budget.
> >> 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.
> 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
Forget about changing the server at all. Looking at dell.com, a
36-month lease on a $3000 server is around $99/month. I'm sure a
better deal could be negotiated with a different company and for a
larger quantity. The last time I suggested leasing I was told that
leasing was for companies that didn't have enough money, and the WMF
had plenty of money. Well, that argument just went out the window
now, didn't it?
> >> 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.
Feel free to try to show otherwise. What I've seen is a wish list,
not a bottom up analysis of the actual costs.
> 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.
I was stripped of my membership in the Foundation a month or so ago.
It's not US. It's them (the board).
> 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
As of the last audited financial report, the foundation was quite
overfunded, not underfunded. If it is now underfunded, that is a new
> 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.
Feel free to change that by providing a credible alternative.
Of course, I think leasing servers is an alternative to buying them.
And I think that's perfectly credible.
More information about the foundation-l