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

Mon Jun 21 19:38:58 UTC 2004

I would like to thank Angela and Florence for serving
on the board. Being elected trustees, a sort of hybrid
between trustee and politician, they will experience
the worst of both worlds. Having been on a governing
board of a non-profit myself, I understand that
building consensus among the users, contributors,
donors, and other trustee will be a very challenging
task.

Before I mention "weekly trips to Florida", I would
ask that readers take my comments with a grain of salt
because I am a notorious tight wad. I am reminded of
this daily because my wife does not appreciate my
energy conservation during the Florida summers.

If Angela did go to Paris for a "trustee meeting" it
would be an invalid trustee meeting unless one of the
trustees, or the computer hosting the meeting, were in
the State of Florida.

I feel administration costs should be kept to a
minimum, hopefully less than 2% of revenue. At the
present time the Wikimedia Foundation has a pressing
need for new hardware and improved software. I also
feel it is very unfair that Bomis is continuing to
give the bandwidth to Wikimedia, and I hope that
Wikimedia will be able to lift this part of this
burden soon.

Though I feel it is important for board members to
meet in person, I feel it is much more important for
other issues to be addressed and funded.

I hope that the Board of Trustees will stick to the
"meat and potatoes" of non-profit governance: auditing
financials, appointing the chief administrator
(Jimbo),  setting very broad goals, promoting the
organization, and raising money. In reality, most
non-profits boards serve as a vehicle for socializing
- which is great fun - but should not be at the
expense of the foundation (in fact, I would hope that
maybe someday there could be an International
Convention of Wikimedians with the proceeds benefiting
the foundation). Just about everything that can be
discussed in person, can be conveyed by e-mail.

Until the foundation has the financial strength to
support growth and operating expenses independently, I
feel trustee expenses should be kept to an absolute
minimum. Maybe it was a little bit too early in the
foundation's history to have elected trustees.
However, trustees should be prudently funded in their
attempts to secure further donations and grants. In so
far as reporters and the such, most reporters will
call you or come to you.

I am troubled that this controversy will further
encourage the fragmentation of the Wikimedia movement
into nationalist or linguistic factions (such as the
German society), making it all the harder for the
foundation to obtain vital general funds among a sea
of grants. 

Once again, I would like to thank all of the trustee
for their work.

H. Cheney

--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> hcheney wrote:
> > If the Wikimedia Foundation starts giving the
> trustees
> > "perks" I feel that fundraising could be quite a
> bit
> > harder. 
> 
> Firstly, phone calls made for Foundation business
> are hardly "perks".
> Secondly, I don't see this sort of expense coming
> out of the normal
> donation funds. People have given those expecting
> they will be used on
> hardware and related purchases, so that is exactly
> what should be done
> with them.
> 
> However, not all of the money in our account is from
> donors. We
> already have â‚¬10,000 from the Ars Electronica
> award, and one of the
> things Anthere and I plan to do over the coming year
> is to find funds
> from alternative sources. We can't rely purely on
> donations from
> within the website, so there is no need for actual
> donor money to be
> spent on board expenses.
> 
> I expect the vast majority of our communication to
> be carried out over
> IRC. However, there are situations where this is not
> plausible. As
> well as the press contacts Anthere mentioned,
> applying for grants is
> one example where face to face contact, or at a
> minimum, phone
> contact, is far more likely to result in success.
> 
> Delirium wrote:
> > As for internet connections, I assume anyone
> involved
> >  in the project already has one â€¦
> 
> I agree. I don't see my internet costs as being
> something the
> Foundation should be paying for.
> 
> Anthere wrote: 
> > 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 have mixed views about this. It is a great
> opportunity for the three
> of us to meet, and probably the only opportunity
> over the following
> year. However, I am not entirely comfortable about
> having to take the
> Foundation's money for it, as Jimbo has suggested I
> do. On the other
> hand, I recognise that starting the year with a real
> life meeting is
> likely to be very beneficial, so if the community
> supported the idea
> that some of the award money (not donor money) could
> pay for this,
> then I would be delighted by that. However, I
> absolutely do not want
> this to happen if it is going to cause a huge
> controversy. People have
> expressed views against board expenses, and so this
> issue needs to be
> treated sensitively. I have no intention of
> upsetting the people who
> so recently voted me into this position.
> 
> Anthere wrote: 
> > Danny added to possible official positions, 
> > the possibility of having an ombudsman. 
> > I personally think it is premature right nowâ€¦
> 
> I don't think this is premature at all. I think it
> will ease a lot of
> the concerns surrounding the idea we're about to jet
> off to Florida
> each week. :) Having an outsider monitoring the
> spending within the
> project sounds a very beneficial idea to me.
> 
> Angela.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 