Hi all,
I'll just start off by saying these are my own personal views and don't necessarily represent the views of the rest of the WMAU committee or Wikimedia Australia as a whole.
My view on spending funds might be seen as a bit extreme, but I believe that funds received through the APG process or from money received through current or past annual WMF fundraisers is still donor money , and that it does not belong to the relevant chapters , and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. Remember, most donations are less than $30 and come from everyday people. When I was planning a meetup in 2012, a good friend of mine reminded me about "Grandma", and to keep in mind how Grandma would feel about how I spent their $30. I've kept this in mind ever since.
This is why I feel we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement whenever possible, and question whether the proposed expenditure is really necessary. Also, how we use the funds we as chapters already have can help or hinder future requests for funds, and this is something I consider before signing off on a project or expenditure.
I'm not one to criticise others for the decisions they've made, for this - but I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage or could be perceived as bias.
With a week and a bit to go, it's not a time where this discussion will mean the arrangements already made for attendees will be changed, but I would hope that us as chapters would consider this more carefully going forward. Might be a worthy discussion topic in Berlin.
Steve Zhang
President - Wikimedia Australia On 02/04/2014 9:27 am, "Itzik Edri" itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
Sorry Nicole, but I'm unhappy with your answer. You are right, engagement on other topics is needed, but this is not means people don't have the right to ask questions and raise concerns.
We didn't have this discussions last year, as none of the chapter sent more then 2+1. There were few people who came before to the Education Meeting, but the left and didn't attend the ChapConf. I think we deserve to know why this has been changed, and why no one notify or discussed about it before. I was member of the location committee, and I'm definitely remember we asked all the proposals to calculates the event costs by this "rule" of number of representatives from each org. More than that, when we decided to select Berlin, we even mentioned the fact that last years WMDE's staff and board was widely around, "breaking" the equality we are looking for, and asking to minimize WMDE's attendees to only what needed to run the conference.
WMDE did a great step toward open discussions about the goals and the program of the conference, so I find it strange they didn't welcome, or willing to response such a crucial question that changed the status quo we been used to since the beginning so secretly.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
I am glad that 1,5 weeks before the conference, there is finally some activity showing up on the lists and the meta pages. I must admit that I would have really loved to see more engagement on topics like conference goals and themes, support for the programme team regarding programme decisions, schedule and outcomes rather than having the same discussions on rules and logistics like every year before.
There is still time (2 days) to give input to the schedule or volunteer as a speaker for some of the sessions. And most importantly, to start discussing and taking position towards the conference topics on-wiki and internally in our home organisations.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme
Everyone interested is very welcome to provide thoughts and ideas. We have three days full of exciting sessions, highly political discussions and fun ahead of us, let's make the best of it together!
I am looking forward to seeing so many of you next week in Berlin!
Best, Nicole
On 1 April 2014 10:47, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Money entrusted to a chapter is for that chapter to spend as they see
fit.
The notion that it is money from the "public" is not a license for
everyone
to meddle. There are people and places where such scrutiny is best expressed. When questions are asked, let them be questions and not
implicit
condemnations.
Fae can do whatever he likes. However, he should understand that as a former chair it is best for the new team to move in its own direction
and
not in the old direction. There is plenty that can be done that is not controversial.
When formalities are used as arguments, you loose sight what the formalities are there for. It is best to "ignore all rules" when that
gets
the job done in an effective way. The notion that because somewhere
else
in
"the movement" things have gone "wrong" does not justify the current criticism. A legitimate question could be "you are sending a large delegation, why is that". It is not legitimate to say "you waste money
by
sending people to a conference, why is that".
Thanks,
GerardMOp 31 mrt. 2014 16:44 schreef "Russavia" <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com
:
Gerard, et al
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
My point is very much that it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely. It is for members of a chapter to question
this
at an appropriate time and at an appropriate place.
Might I make a point here.
It is not "their money", but rather the money of donors -- i.e. the
general
public -- who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive.
The "movement", as you all like to refer to it, has a tendency to
waste
money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as
demonstrated
last year by http://twkozlowski.net/how-40k-dollars-turned-to-petty-cash/and http://twkozlowski.net/saving-by-spending-according-to-affcom/
The appropriate time to question such spending is BEFORE the funds is committed and spent. The place is unimportant, but here is as good as
any.
As a member of "the movement", Fae has every right to ask such
questions,
and I believe he also has the right to be able to ask such questions without snide remarks such as "Really Fae, as you are no longer the
chair,
why rule "from the grave"?" being thrown at him . Unfortunately, there
is a
tendency in "the movement" when legitimate questions are raised, for a committed movementarian to deflect from that questioning with snide attacks.
Now, Fae has asked some legit questions of UK chapter, and it is only
fair
that they answer them.
Cheers,
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Nicole Ebber Leiterin Internationales Head of International Affairs
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe