Daniel Mayer wrote:
Fantasy wrote:
Hi Mav (or Jimbo),
Re
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fundraising.html
In your function of Treasurer for the board,
Er, ah, I just volunteered to be treasurer if nobody else who was
qualified/motivated didn't want the position. Nothing official at all at this
point.
Hmmm! It's not about who will be treasurer, but about how we choose our
treasurer.
"What is
this Wikimedia-Fondation", "Why should
we trust this people",
So far the Foundation is just Jimbo and the reason you should trust him is
because he has never given any reason not to be trusted while being in a
position that could cause the end of the project on a simple whim (or to
bastardize the concept by making it commercial; have you ever seen an add on
Wikipedia?). He is now legally subordinate to the Foundation but as I said he
is the Foundation so far. I still trust him completely though.
Sigh!! This is not about trusting Jimbo. Such questions will continue
as long as there are new newbies.
Maybe with a
little bit of transparency we could
show them that this is a really "Open" Organisation.
Slow down - we still need to set the darn thing up. Yes, it legally exists but
a great deal of work still has to be done by the community to make the
Wikimedia Foundation actually become more than just Jimbo.
But it is set up ... and who is "we" anyway? A document had to be filed
with the Florida government to be incorporated in the first place. One
of the questions that Florida asks on its form is how the directors will
be chosen. That document and the statement from the state government
that Wikimedia is recognized as a foundation is a good starting place.
These could easily be scanned and put on the appropriate website.
IMO, all we really should be worried about (especially
at first) is pure
numbers and dates, not who contributed how much. The "who" has to be kept
confidential at least until we get a way for people to indicate that they
wouldn't mind having this info made public. Even then it should be a
community decision on whether or not to make the 'who' info easily available;
last thing we need is for people to think that the size of their donations
somehow gives them more power in our community. Merit and a good track record
should still be the number one criteria we consider for that type of thing.
There has never been a community decision to keep this information
secret. The POV that the "who" has to be kept confidential is pure
fiction. Community decisions work both ways; there is no basis for
assuming that either position is the correct default position.
The argument for openness is just as strong as the fear that people's
opinions will be influenced by the size of another's contributions. The
sociology of this phenomenon could be a discussion by itself.
If the users
see that the amount send was officially
stated/received somewhere, maybe they would put
more trust (and money) into Wikimedia/pedia.
For now at least, this info will have to be placed on a page on meta. I think
I heard that we have received about US$1,000 in donations so far and that
Jimbo put a couple thousand in the account when he opened it.
IIRC from skimming Wikitech-l, what we have right now in funds is almost what
we need to upgrade our current servers, but there has been some talk about
also buying a US$6,000 server in a few months (giving us a three server
set-up).
This is not about Jimbo's well-known generosity, which needs to be
appropriately celebrated. Nor is it about Mav's generosity for his
expenses in securing a long list of domain names, which also needs
recognition. It's about openness which allows even newbies to feel that
they belong and have a stake in what is happening.
Ec