Lila Tretikov wrote:
I know this request was for the Board, but I took time to explain as much as I could about the context of this grant and the work it funds as well as to answer as many questions as possible that I have seen. I realize many people a curious about what it actually funds, so you will find the statement of work cut and pasted there.
Thank you for this post, Lila. It provides a lot of helpful context and understanding surrounding the Knight Foundation's recent restricted grant. One part of this arrangement still confuses me. In the linked post, you write, "With this grant we brought the idea to the funder and they supported our work with this grant."
Why ask for and take the money? The Wikimedia Foundation can raise $250,000 in a few days (maybe hours) by placing ads on a few large Wikipedias soliciting donations. Why take on a restricted grant, with its necessary reporting overhead and other administrative costs?
You also write: --- Why should the community and staff support this decision of our board and leadership?
I would hope that for staff, the answer to this question is clear. ---
This is very aggressive. I'm not sure this type of attitude is aligned with an idealistic, non-profit educational organization.
For the general issue, you point out that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is required to approve large (over $100,000) restricted grants. I think the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (copied) should modify its acceptance requirements to mandate that large restricted grants have their grant agreements and other related paperwork publicly published. This would not apply retroactively. Publishing the grant paperwork fits in well well with our transparency principles and values.
For the specific issue, who can be contacted at the Knight Foundation to ask about publishing the grant paperwork? Presumably the Knight Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation, having just partnered, share values. Is the Knight Foundation okay with the full grant agreement being published?
MZMcBride