[Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

Fri May 26 19:03:21 UTC 2006

Robin Shannon wrote:
> On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time
>>we did so publicly was
>>just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is
>>due to the fact that we
>>long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have
>>therefore been missing
>>out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very
>>large donations and to
>>reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing.
>>And a staff needs a
>>person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization.
>>Simply put, we are
>>transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional
>>organization. Staff are an
>>investment.
>>
>>-- mav
> 
> 
> You see i really don't like how that was worded (this is not meant at
> all to be a personal attack on mav just a warning about what we may
> become). " We have been talking about this for at least a couple
> years; the last time we did so publicly was just mentioned and linked
> to by Erik." I've been lurking and occasionally posting on this list
> and others for most of the time it has existed and now that Erik
> linked to that thread i do remember it but that is the only previous
> mention i remember (i'm not saying there haven't been more, just that
> we haven't had a large public debate about it). I think we need to
> engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
> should be heading and how we should go about it. Espesially if the
> direction is towards corpratisation. So far i think the WMF has been
> doing the best it can of a difficult job and i don't mean to critisise
> anyone personally, I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
> is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
> whoever. The money that the foundation spends is not the foundation's
> but the wikimedia community's (i am not talking in a legal way i am
> talking in an ethical way. It was given for the community not the
> foundation).
> 
> The balance sheets tell me that 60 something percent of money goes to
> servers and hardware and the rest goes to other stuff. I don't think
> that is a good balance. That is my view. What is the view of most
> people in the community? What is the view of most donors? I dunno.
> Does anyone? Do all the board members and others who have most to do
> with the day to day running of foundation issues think we need a CEO?
> 
> paz y amor,
> -rjs.
> 

Oh YES. We do need a CEO. Badly.

Ant