[Foundation-l] board candidacies
Anthere
anthere9 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 11 18:43:30 UTC 2006
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
> I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board
> members are required to spend their own money for things)
?
Sorry Danny, but it is not a false assumption.
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches.
This has been the case for over 2 years now. Until last december, I had
a job and it was not an issue to use my own savings. It has become an
issue. And yes, Jimbo took it lightly during the board panel when I
stupidely commented the issue. And yes, Andrew made fun of it saying
that Thomas was taking care of by yourself during Wikimania in any
cases. And yes, I felt humiliated. And yes, it is getting up to my
throat right now. Badly. Everyday a little bit more. Each time I have to
find a different way to organise myself to limit costs as much as I can,
and each time it takes hours to find the best solution. Usually illegal,
as legal is too expensive. And each time my husband talks to me angrily
because my poorly built-up solutions impair his own working time. And
each time I cut on something I could have offered to my own kids. And
each time I am more angry.
So rrrrright, so much for the false assumptions. The expenses of Board
members relating to Foundation work are not entirely covered by the
Foundation. That's not a false assumption. That's a fact.
This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care
costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?
Ant
and builds on that to
> create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the
> Board).
>
> To the best of my knowledge:
> 1. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by
> the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal
> savings."
> 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board.
> 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived as a
> potential conflict of interests.
> 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board
> membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the
> organization.
>
> Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its members.
>
> Danny
>
>
> In a message dated 8/11/2006 1:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> erikzachte at infodisiac.com writes:
>
> Walter van Kalken:
>
>>I personally feel that one of the big issues is that people are required
>>to spend their own money for things. This means that if you life outside
>>of the US, even outside of Florida that your costs will be prohibitively
>>high. I personally find that one of the most prohibitive requirements.
>>Many people whom would have the time and the enthousiasm do not have a
>>bankaccount for that. And that is one of the reasons I have a lot of
>>respect for Angela and Anthere. They are willing to spend their personal
>>savings for the betterment of the projects. People should realize that
>>the next time they start complaining with them.
>
>
> I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot com millionaires on the
> Board, and the Advisory Board might add some.
> This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got their
> priorities right.
>
> What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere was treated during the Board
> session last Sunday when the issue of paying board members was brought up.
> Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of "(I'm not sure) we want to pay
> board members, besides it is not allowed by the bylaws" (paraphrasing here).
> Easy to say in his position. Then someone made a witty but badly timed joke
> about the situation, the chairman of the Board might have intervened at that
> moment. I feel it was humiliating for Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other
> board members than Jimmy to accept well paid invitations for keynote
> speeches?
>
> Erik Zachte
More information about the wikimedia-l
mailing list