[Wikimedia-l] proposed urgent Board of Trustees resolution without a meeting

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

While I think I would definitely like to see WMF raise resources besides
the year-to-year needs so as to gradually build an endowment fund (clearly
it would have to be clear to the donors when contributing) I believe that
trying to maximize the fundraising each year could be dangerous (jeopardize
the stability of income due to occasional overstretching, leave no safety
valve, and also borderline advertising if understood literally).

Best,

dj
24 gru 2012 16:54, "Thomas Morton" <morton.thomas at googlemail.com>
napisał(a):

> From a good governance point of view "maximum" is a bad idea.
>
> This motion would introduce so very poor governance ideas without clear
> aims.
>
> Tom
>
> On Monday, December 24, 2012, James Salsman wrote:
>
> > Federico,
> >
> > Thank you for your very helpful reply. I'm sorry, I didn't realize
> > that Glassdoor.com results were client location specific. You can use
> > a proxy terminating in the U.S. to read about Wikimedia Foundation
> > employee satisfaction and compensation relative to other San Francisco
> > technology firms.
> >
> > > Your proposal has already been implemented in 2010:
> > > «All Wikimedia fundraising activities must aim to raise the maximum
> > > possible amount of money [...]»
> > > <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Developing_Scenarios_for_future_of_fundraising
> > >
> > > «Fundraising activities in the Wikimedia movement should generally be
> > > directed at achieving the highest possible overall financial support
> > [...]»
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles
> >
> > This is most helpful for allowing fundraising to continue without the
> > need for a Board resolution without a meeting, or for more specific
> > trustee candidate questions if it does not.
> >
> > > Are you asking to amend
> > > <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Delegations_of_Financial_and_Spending_Authority
> > >
> >
> > Is there any reason that subsequent specific direction can not be
> > provided without amending that resolution?
> >
> > > Are you asking to amend
> > > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus>?
> >
> > Not necessarily, but I am asking that it be reconsidered after
> > community consultation. That resolution was approved without a widely
> > announced community discussion, which is so completely unprecedented
> > for a change of that magnitude that I could not believe it at the
> > time. The comments at
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus
> > show that the Foundation staff and trustees are very much opposed to
> > the opinions of the few members of the community who found that page
> > in time to comment.
> >
> > For that reason I will be recommending specific community initiatives
> > during next year's Board elections.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > James Salsman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>