[Foundation-l] Where we are headed

Sun Jun 4 00:58:12 UTC 2006

Gavin Chait wrote:
> Now I'm the one that's amused.
> 
> Before anyone goes jumping to conclusions: I am not throwing my hat in the 
> COO ring, interim or not.  Believe it or not, I hadn't thought about it. 
> But thanks for the vote of confidence ;)
> 
> As with any other submission made here, my suggestions are to take as you 
> choose.  I mention my background simply to give a context to where my ideas 
> come from.  I don't know anyone here directly, any more than any of you know 
> me.
> 
> The discussion is familiar from the development sector here.  Ours is large, 
> diverse and vibrant (estimated at 8% of the economy and the largest 
> employer).  And in a state of major confusion at present because of the way 
> that donors have changed and the old supply-side system of development is in 
> the process of being shoved aside.  Many organisations here are trying to 
> figure out how to adapt, while keeping hosts of volunteers happy and 
> involved.  Sometimes that sort of thing can go terribly wrong.
> 
> Non-profit organisations can be divided loosely into two major areas: 
> reaction and proaction.  Reactionary stuff is relatively straightforward - 
> floods, wars, famines, medical emergencies and so on.  Pro-action is more 
> difficult.  It relies on predicting the future and what we think may be 
> best.  It's a guess, and hopefully an educated one.  I've never worked on 
> the reactionary side and so spend my time "guessing" at the best way to 
> achieve what has already been achieved in more developed nations.  It isn't 
> easy and everyone has a different idea, not only of the future, but also of 
> the path to get there.
> 
> Anthony you have interpreted me well:  "... that the Wikimedia board has no 
> clue how best to organize itself so as to accomplish that mission ..."  That 
> is what I understand and it seems an awfully large responsibility to dump 
> onto the shoulders of your new COO.
> 
> Surely you should agree on some basics first and declare them unequivocally? 
> Then give your COO time and space to figure it out without having to answer 
> "are we there yet?" questions every few minutes.  It would be best to agree 
> on these things before you even start recruiting so that anyone applying 
> knows what they're letting themselves in for. 

Nod

The following four points are the starting points on which the interim 
execdir should focus.

First point, the Foundation has no administrative stability. Missing 
budgets. Poorly filled up and too-late-posted-forms. Pending if not lost 
bills. Etc... You name it. Most urgent job to do.

Second point, the Foundation has inadequate staff. Whether we should 
look for volunteers or paid staff is another issue, but we do need more 
staff in some specific areas. People working on administrative issues 
(such as very simply... answering the phone, helping on OTRS). People 
working to provide legal support. People to write grants. Financial 
management. Here are some examples of areas where we are lacking help. 
The CEO will be in charge of finding these people, with pay if 
necessary, and of managing them.

Third point, the Foundation is financially insecure. We essentially rely 
on small donations, some of it flowing naturally thanks to the links on 
the website, and some in more important manner during fundraisings. We 
have very few sponsors and nearly no money from grants. Basically 
nothing from business (such as datafeed or agreement with our tms).
Do we have enough ? No. We just manage the basics. We could definitly 
benefit from more hardware. We need more staff. We need to secure money 
for potential legal problems. We must secure our tms or domain names. 
And it would be nice to start having charitable activity or make some pr 
in the countries where we are totally unknown.
At the same time, as pointed out by the tech team, we can cut down on 
some costs (eg, hosting charges)
The CEO will have to ensure that we do not pay unreasonable prices to 
have the sites running. He must develop income in particular from 
bizdev, sponsors and grants.

And due to his specificities...
Last point, the Foundation has great legal exposure and must protect its 
assets. It may not be obvious for everyone here, but we *do* receive 
pretty disturbing letters from lawyers. Maybe some of you realise this 
through the activity of WP:Office. There are some issues to fix 
regarding this Office stamp. But regardless, we must expect legal 
problems in the future, and the CEO will be in charge of organising the 
Foundation so that the impact is minimum. Second point, as some of you 
noticed, there are some threats to the project and to the community. 
 From users outing people, to websites liberally using our logos and tm, 
we may have to consider becoming pro-active.

ant