[Foundation-l] Re: Funding for the newly elected Board Members

Mon Jun 21 07:06:47 UTC 2004

Delirium wrote:
> daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
> 
>> I know that the Wikimedia is currently strapped for cash. However, I 
>> would like to propose that we cover certain key expenses for our 
>> elected board members relating to their participation in Wikimedia 
>> work. For instance, telephone calls overseas should be covered by the 
>> Foundation, and not the elected representatives. A broadband 
>> connection should be covered by the Foundation as well.
>>  
>> While every participant is doing their work on Wikipedia and the other 
>> projects voluntarily, Ant and Angela are expected to represent us, the 
>> users. We should make it as easy for them as possible.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't consider this a high priority---certainly far below buying 
> servers, which we already don't have enough money to buy. 

I think we should relieve you of your fears with regards to this issue 
Mark :-)

Last evening, we were discussing of how much money was currently in bank.
I made a quick estimate, because Mav in on holidays, so I could not ask 
him last numbers, but basically I know that mid may we had roughly 5.400 
dollars. Add to this the 9000 dollars refund for a server. Plus 10.000 
euros received a few days ago by Jimbo for the trophy.

That makes about 24 000 dollars (it is a *very* rough estimate).

JeLuF made a provisional hardware budget for the rest of the year.
You may find it here : 
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_provisional_budget
Current amount indicated is 12000 dollars

We naturally have also to plan for contingencies.

So, I would not say that we do not have *enough* money to buy servers. 
The problem might be somewhere else.

I would say that we should plan a fund raising time in fall. It will be 
necessary. But saying we do not have enough money right now is just 
plain incorrect.

  Unless we
 > find ourselves in a situation where we have so much cash we don't have
 > any place it could better be spent, I think a better approach would be
 > to simply use email to communicate like everyone else does.  As for
 > internet connections, I assume anyone involved in the project already
 > has one (how else would they be Wikipedians, given that this is
 > primarily an internet-based project?).
 >
 > -Mark

Yes. You are correct. But perhaps a board member is not only in touch 
with wikipedians, but also with the outside world. And though I tried to 
  suggest a couple of journalists to connect to irc or only use emails, 
I really do not understand why they strongly insist on phone meeting or 
better, face to face meetings :-)....
Same goes for meetings where Wikipedia is presented. Very curious :-)

 >Adding a qualification to this: I wouldn't be opposed to voluntary 
 >donations by people who feel strongly about this.  If there are 
 >expenses that are turning out to be problematic, there could be a 
 >fund-raising campaign to provide funding for the board members.  But 
 >this should come out of specific donations for that purpose: people 
 >should know they're donating specifically to the "Wikimedia board of 
 >trustees communication and travel fund" or something.

Absolutely. It is very important that people know how their money is 
spent. I deeply agree. And we know that donations were done to purchase 
*hardware*, because most donations were sent while wiki was broken, and 
we made a general call precisely to have new hardware, so no money 
donated to pay for server should be used for any other means. This is an 
essential point, and I really wish that no one have any doubts about that.

We provide right now transparent money use history. Mav has been 
maintaining this for a while now. See

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_bank_account_history_for_2004

Now, you should also know that Jimbo goes on paying some expenses as 
well, such as when a developer goes to the coloc. This is not reported 
in the current history.

I think that in the future, we may ask members to indicate if they wish 
that their money is used for a specific purpose. Till now, the two 
specific purposes were
* hardware
* purchase of a computer for Brion

I see many more. Especially for firms funding. A firm or an organisation 
may wish that the donation money is used in a specific way, such as 
support of a minority language, or sending computers with wikipedia on 
it to an given african country, or making a whole set of wikireaders 
around a specific topic. There are many options and to my opinion, 
donators should have the possibility to indicate what they want the 
money to be used for.

Aside from donations, we also recently received an award (10 000 euros), 
and the money from this award may be used the way we choose to use it. 
Which mean, we can use it for hardware, or for *anything else*, 
including to support costs which will help to build the community.

 >This is something I feel somewhat strongly about, especially since 
 >someone mentioned how other organizations routinely do it: they are 
 >most definitely not models to emulate.  A great many non-profit 
 >organizations are inefficient, wasteful, and often simply corrupt, 
with >a relatively small percentage of their money going towards their 
actual >stated mission.

 >-Mark

I'd like to be very direct and to cite a very specific example. In about 
2 weeks, there is a meeting in Paris, for many french speaking 
wikipedians. I will meet Jimbo there. Jimbo made the great suggestion 
that Angela meet us there as well. It will allow her to meet with french 
wikipedians AND it will probably be the first and the last opportunity 
for the whole year, for the board to meet face to face for really low cost.

I think that though most issues may be solved in irc and emails 
discussion, it is very highly suitable that the board meets in real life 
at least once in the year, and this meeting in Paris is the lowest cost 
opportunity to do so. I deeply believe that on-line discussions can be 
improved when people have met around a beer once. Hence, I hope Angel 
will come to Paris. It will strengthen the community to do so. And I do 
not think a project like our own project, does rely ONLY of hardware 
considerations; it relies a lot on PEOPLE. And using a bit of money from 
the Foundation to strenghten the bonds between people does not seen to 
me to be a waste. Many issues can be fixed on face to face meeting, so 
that is not inefficiency either. And finally, talking of corruption is 
perhaps a bit premature Mark.

The board will be very much what you all wish it to be Mark. So perhaps 
this is what we should discuss right now.

We can solve a lot of organisational issues online.  If you want us to 
be only doing this, that is fine. It has little cost, but for our time 
and energy.

However, if the board is also expected to meet people outside, to write 
to american administration, to give interviews, to go to major events, I 
think paying us the costs of it, the costs for US representing YOU is 
not very chocking. And has little to do with corruption.

I'd like to personally add a last point. I am a working woman, so I have 
income. However, I am not rich. Far from it. My family has enough to 
live quietly. No excess though. Like many many many of you, I chose to 
give most of my free time (more than my free time actually) for this 
project, because I very strongly believe in it. I am all dedicated to 
give my energy to help it and I will.

But it will *not* be to the cost of my family financial stability. That 
would be highly unfair to my husband and my children.

I will, and I think any board member, will only be what you expect us to 
be. If covering our costs is too controversial, then let it be :-) We'll 
do just as with operating costs, we'll remove all these handy little 
options in special pages :-)

Cheers

ant/flo