[Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses

[Sue Gardner]

On 8 October 2012 12:18, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems clear to me, based on the end result and what foundation board and
> senior staff have said, that they decided an account of money they wanted
> to request from the FDC and then decided what to designate as non-core so
> that it added up to that amount.
>
> Rather disingenuous of them, but Sue has been very clear that she only sees
> the foundation's application as a way of testing the process rather than as
> actually being the right way to determine the budget.
> On Oct 8, 2012 11:14 AM, "Itzik Edri" <itzik at infra.co.il> wrote:


Hi Thomas & Itzik,

There's FAQ material on the wikis about how core versus non-core were
determined -- I think it's part of the annual plan FAQ. (I'd link you
to it, but I'm in a bit of a rush. Maybe somebody else can point to
the right place?)

The Board and I had a number of discussions about core versus non-core
-- to very swiftly recap, we decided that we did not want core to mean
the rock-bottom base costs of operating the site. We realized that in
making that decision we'd risk being confusing, and that people would
likely end up sending inquiries like the one Itzik just sent, because
they'd likely be operating on the assumption that core did indeed mean
base costs. We considered whether to label it as something other than
"core" in order to avoid being confusing, but in the end went ahead
with core for lack of a better word.

Going from memory -- core is intended to represent the ordinary costs
of running the global sites -- so for example, it would include all
the costs of maintaining the trademark portfolio, providing legal
defence where necessary, doing media stuff and internal global
movement communications work, etc. For example we decided that
internationalization & localization are part of "core," because our
core work includes providing a service in multiple languages.

We did not want core to represent the base, rock-bottom,
non-negotiable costs of operating the sites on a shoestring, because
that's not the purpose of this exercise, because we're not in a
position where we need to make extraordinarily difficult choices about
whether to preserve, for example, internationalization & localization
versus site performance. If we were in that position (needing to make
very painful choices due to financial necessity) of course we would.
But that's not where we are.

Thomas, it's not actually true that I see this as purely an exercise
in testing the FDC process, although I do definitely think running
part of the WMF budget through the FDC will help us be sensitive to
fund-seeker needs as we iterate the process. I do also see value in
the process itself -- getting community input on the WMF's non-core
activities, etc., will be useful.

(Just FYI -- I won't be able to reply any more to this thread for much
of the rest of the day, by the way -- I'm swamped and doing a bunch of
things.)

Thanks,
Sue