[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Dan Rosenthal]

You've worked towards fixing it. You're not there yet.

-Dan
On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> We know exactly what's wrong with that, and that's why we fixed it.


That's a sacrifice one makes when one decides, of their own free  
will, to volunteer for the organization. All our editors are  
volunteers. They certainly don't expect to receive child care  
reimbursement for attending Wikimania, or a Wikimeetup. So if it's  
not volunteer status that earns it, then what, it's because of their  
position on the board? Board members are supposed to be stewards of  
the organization, not special perk-holders.

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Alison Wheeler wrote:
> Doing something for a charity / foundation - such as the WMF -  
> where you
> aren't actually *paid* for the work you do can involve you in  
> expenses you
> wouldn't otherwise incur. As you note, this might include  
> transportation
> costs, hotel costs, but it *also* includes implicitly includes such  
> things
> as childcare costs!


It's not a penalty. Nobody is being punished. The board members did  
not have reimbursed child care by the foundation before they were  
appointed or elected. This was something given to them. They were  
responsible for taking care of their family before that, and they  
should be responsible for it now.

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Alison Wheeler wrote:
> Being a director of the Foundation brings few financial benefits,  
> indeed
> it is not allowed to do so (!), but penalising the *family* of  
> someone who
> offers his or her services should never, imho, be permitted or even
> considered.




At the moment it is a small sum. But what happens when 5 members of  
the office and all 7 members of the board one day have kids  
(hypothetically). A few hundred euros or dollars or whatever a year  
begins to add up.

And irregardless of that, costs are not the important point.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:

>
>
> I am in support of reimbursing reasonable expenses directly incurred
> for work the Foundation has asked of them, including child care.
>
> Wikimedia in the past has chosen board members because of their
> commitment to the orgnization and its mission, and not for their
> direct or indirect financial support, unlike many other organizations.
>
> An employee may negotiate the salary if it is not sufficient to cover
> what they require, and any reasonable employer will look at the costs
> and the benefits and the circumstances and do what makes sense.
> Because of this, such a policy may be more restrictive for a
> compensated employee, whose expenses beyond the standard
> air/food/lodging should already be accounted for in their
> compensation, than for a volunteer who often chooses to forgo other
> employment opportunities in order to give time to Wikimedia, who
> already pays the opportunity cost of not working more, and who now
> must pay additional expenses as well.
>
> This is not a windfall for any of us, and perhaps for most of us we
> have not only done things that were not essential at our own expense,
> but also set aside time to do this instead of things that would be
> more lucrative. Being on the board is not intended to be a windfall,
> but neither is it intended to be an undue hardship.
>
> Right now, if we would like to be able to keep the sorts of people
> that the community has indicated through its vote that it wishes to
> see on the board, who have given their time and given up opportunities
> to do so, and has asked them to travel on behalf of the organization,
> at a benefit to the organization, I do not think it unreasonable that
> expenses should be compensated.
>
> No travel is approved unless it is considered worthwhile; conference
> speeches, board meetings, and opportunities for fundraising or
> business deals are some examples of things worth enough to pay travel
> and incidentals for them; I support the idea of making such expenses
> public as far as is possible. For some events, a price tag can be
> placed on the benefit and for others it cannot; still, it is an
> expense that is considered worthwhile. Should then the cost of child
> care, as a small portion of the total expense and certainly no luxury,
> be a sticking point that may make the difference between having
> someone who should represent us able to attend or not, or prevent
> those we would most like to represent us from being able to serve on
> the board at all? I don't think that it should.
>
> -Kat
>


Please. It's not 19th century governance. It's called personal  
responsibility in not taking on more job than your finances can handle.

On Jul 9, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Welcome to the 19th century, and the barefoot, pregnant and in the
> kitchen model of board governance..


And this will be my last comments on this subject.

-Dan Rosenthal