[Foundation-l] A Challenge: Sending Angela to gay Paree!

Wed Jun 23 11:22:29 UTC 2004

sannse wrote:

>>Excellent idea!
>>
>>I find all these discussion really ridicoulous and I also think that
>>it is important that Angela can meet Anthere and Jimbo at Paris.
>>
>>I offer 50EUR to the fondation to cover her travel if she attend the meet
>>and without other condition :-)
>>

I think the discussion mixes two aspects which should be separted for 
transparancy:

1) the problem that successful developing organisations their elected 
management usually gets apart from the broad mass of the community. This 
might either be an informal process or a process due to formal 
organisational structures like forming a board of a foundation. I 
suppose this will not yet happen with the current members elected which 
come from the roots of Wikipedia. But what will be with future 
generations of board members? Usally special people get attracted by 
such formal structures and are keen to get elected - as you can see in 
many parties, foundations etc. worldwide. So its a kind of law that over 
time the danger grows that bureaucratic structures develop and the gap 
between management and the community widens more and more. It therefore 
seems important to establish the most open communication rules and 
transparancy to prevent such typical developments. I assume, that the 
discussion about funding  travel costs of board members here is just 
taken as an example as a future take off by elected board members from 
the basic community is feared.

2) The funding of travel costs itself.  May be it could be helpful if 
all people intending to give donations are given options for which 
purpose they can donate - just place such options on the donation web 
pages and explain them. The total amount of donations received is 
usually much greater if donators can choose personally for what purpose 
their donation shall be used for. One of the options could then be the 
funding of travel costs.  I think this would be the most open approach 
towards donators. At the same time budgets and aims for donations must 
be openly argued for and published. Furthermore internal discussions 
about justifications why what money for what purpose shall be used can 
be avoided. If nobody donates for a purpose proposed - just let it be. 
Presenting the donation community the needs for funding by options is 
the fairest approach, its their money Wikipedia uses. And letting the 
donators decide about how their money shall be spent, you can be sure 
that they are willing to spend much more in total cash. By this 
Wikipedia will have the greatest benefit possible.

Dietrich
hase at akademie.de