[Foundation-l] LA Times article / Advertising in Wikipedia

[Nathan]

I can understand that, and I appreciate that you are following the issue,
but I stand by the fact that I think relying on individual donations in
perpetuity to preserve the work and mission of the Foundation does not
constitute responsible stewardship. This isn't to say that the current
method is irresponsible - but if change and improvement is resisted without
even consideration (because we say "We know the community is against this"
before we really look into it and ask them to evaluate options) then I
strongly believe that this is not the right way forward. Childish, in that
sense, is stomping your foot and saying "no way!" - which isn't an
accusation against the Board, but at some individuals who have already
expressed this attitude now and in the past.

George Hebert mentions short-circuiting the community, and I wouldn't ask or
expect that at all. But the community is made up of people who are not
professionals in operating and funding a non-profit foundation. In order to
make an educated decision about this sort of issue, the Foundation needs to
provide the community with as much information and as many options as
possible without dismissing the question out of hand.

Nathan

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> > FYI. The discussion about advertising will never be completely closed,
> > expect it to come up again and again. Conservative advertising could
> easily
> > be managed through relatively minimal use of Google ads or another ad
> > server, particularly now that we have a professionalizing staff.
> Involving
> > contributors by asking for donations is great - relying on the continued
> > generosity of these contributors to put the foundation on a sound
> footing
> > for the long term is irresponsible.
> >
> > Nathan
>
> I am not super motivated to discuss any issue
> 1) when every one knows it is controversial
> 2) and the discussion starts by calling "irresponsible" and "childish"
> those who are following another path
>
> But I'll be happy to read what others have to say on the topic.
>
> Ant
>
>
>