[Foundation-l] board candidacies

Fri Aug 11 18:43:30 UTC 2006

daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>  
> I am confused by this thread. It is starting with false assumptions (Board  
> members are required to spend their own money for things) 

?

Sorry Danny, but it is not a false assumption.
I am currently required to spend my own money to go and give speeches. 
This has been the case for over 2 years now. Until last december, I had 
a job and it was not an issue to use my own savings. It has become an 
issue. And yes, Jimbo took it lightly during the board panel when I 
stupidely commented the issue. And yes, Andrew made fun of it saying 
that Thomas was taking care of by yourself during Wikimania in any 
cases. And yes, I felt humiliated. And yes, it is getting up to my 
throat right now. Badly. Everyday a little bit more. Each time I have to 
find a different way to organise myself to limit costs as much as I can, 
and each time it takes hours to find the best solution. Usually illegal, 
as legal is too expensive. And each time my husband talks to me angrily 
because my poorly built-up solutions impair his own working time. And 
each time I cut on something I could have offered to my own kids. And 
each time I am more angry.

So rrrrright, so much for the false assumptions. The expenses of Board 
members relating to Foundation work are not entirely covered by the 
Foundation. That's not a false assumption. That's a fact.

This said, Michael wrote yesterday that I should ask for my child care 
costs to be covered. Does that need a resolution ?

Ant

and builds on that to
>  create further false assumptions (we have enough dot com millionaires on the 
>  Board). 
>  
> To the best of my knowledge: 
> 1. The expenses of Board members relating to Foundation work are covered by  
> the Foundation. They do not come from the individual Board members' "personal  
> savings." 
> 2. We currently have no dot com millionaires on the Board. 
> 3. Paying Board members for Board-related activities can be perceived  as a 
> potential conflict of interests. 
> 4. In many non-profit organizations in the US--but not the WMF--Board  
> membership is actually contingent upon making a significant donation to the  
> organization.
>  
> Please get the facts right when complaining about the Board and its  members. 
>  
> Danny
>  
>  
> In a message dated 8/11/2006 1:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
> erikzachte at infodisiac.com writes:
> 
> Walter  van Kalken:
> 
>>I personally feel that one of the big issues is that  people are required
>>to spend their own money for things. This means  that if you life outside
>>of the US, even outside of Florida that your  costs will be prohibitively
>>high. I personally find that one of the  most prohibitive requirements.
>>Many people whom would have the time  and the enthousiasm do not have a
>>bankaccount for that. And that is  one of the reasons I have a lot of
>>respect for Angela and Anthere.  They are willing to spend their personal
>>savings for the betterment of  the projects. People should realize that
>>the next time they start  complaining with them.
> 
> 
> I concur with this entirely. We have enough dot  com millionaires on the
> Board, and the Advisory Board might add  some.
> This is not personal to anyone, those concerned probably just got  their
> priorities right.
> 
> What 'saddens' me however is the way Anthere  was treated during the Board
> session last Sunday when the issue of paying  board members was brought up.
> Jimbo made a casual remark to the effect of  "(I'm not sure) we want to pay
> board members, besides it is not allowed by  the bylaws" (paraphrasing here).
> Easy to say in his position. Then someone  made a witty but badly timed joke
> about the situation, the chairman of the  Board might have intervened at that
> moment. I feel it was humiliating for  Anthere. Maybe the bylaws allow other
> board members than Jimmy to accept  well paid invitations for keynote
> speeches?
> 
> Erik  Zachte