[Foundation-l] Christmas lull

[Anthere]

Tim Starling wrote:
> http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~leon/stats/reqstats/reqstats-monthly.png
> 
> The quiestest two days for Wikimedia were the 24th and 25th, straddling 
> week 51 and 52 on the graph. A lull in request rate has continued 
> throughout the week. We're still seeing significantly more traffic now 
> than we were in the middle of the year, but I have to wonder if it might 
> not have been better, in hindsight, to move the fundraising drive back a 
> couple of weeks.
> 
> -- Tim Starling


If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks sooner", I must emphasize 
we expected to start the fundraising *sooner* than it actually started.
We were delayed first by the audit (we absolutely wanted to be able to 
show financial results and a general budget along with the fundraising 
call).
We were also delayed one more week, because technical details were not 
ready (if I remember well, crm was not entirely set up, site notice was 
not done at all, no agreement made with matching donors, the very cool 
fundraising website was not done yet, no press release had been written 
etc...).
In short, we were not ready.
Two weeks sooner would have been cool, but we just *did not have* the 
resources to make that happen. No use "wondering" if that would have 
been better. It was just not possible.


If moving it "back" means "starting two weeks later", this was 
envisionned and much discussed; On one hand we wanted to give donors the 
opportunity to make a donation in year 2006, for tax deductibility 
purposes. On the other hand, the cash available was getting low. So, we 
decided to move on anyway.


As for the realistic amount... let us be realistic. We have two main 
options.
Either we give no goals. People see the money flow in, and are 
reassured. They think "oh, that's cool, they have enough money and we 
will not see any fundraising before a long time".
And on our side, we despair in silence. Because we know we will proceed 
with a strict economy of sort.

Or we give a goal. Or hint there is a goal. And perhaps reach it, 
perhaps do not reach it.
If we do not reach, it is kinda easy to say "this goal were irrealistic, 
how stupid it was to set up such a goal".


 From my point of view, I prefer you to think we are irrealistic, but to 
realise that if we do not have enough money, then we will not have 
enough money to function properly. That may mean delay to purchase 
servers (hence, poor service to readers and editors). That may mean less 
developers (hence, no development of much needed features). That may 
mean less legal support (hence, additional delay when you are waiting 
for a contractual agreement to publish a DVD, or no help if you are a 
chapter and want support to retrieve a cybersquatted domain). That may 
mean no big meeting to work on the future of mediawiki. That may mean 
letting people abuse our trademarks, because we have no mean to go after 
abusers.


Well, I prefer that we set up a goal that appears irrealistic, but which 
is nevertheless what we need. If we fail that goal, at least, I can 
explain why the Foundation will not pay a developer to work on 
reviewed-versions, or why the Foundation will not pay the travel of 
people to go to the next chapter meeting. These are examples. We can set 
up the priorities, and only fund the priorities. With much regrets for 
the other cool things we could do :-)

Ant