Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
Hoi, Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide in a hurry to move away from vector. Effort will be concentrated on further development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an afterthought. Expensive at that. When you choose to stick to monobook you will have more bugs and issues in the long run. As Roan indicated, some new features will just work some won't. Thanks, GerardM On 30 June 2010 09:42, Martin Maurer martinmaure...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and it would be a pity to see it thrown away. -- Tim Starling Thanks for your reply, Tim. No worries, in no case would Vector be 'thrown away'. We are happy that Wikipedia offers not just one skin, the default, but multiple skins, and Vector is certainly appreciated as a new option in the list. Variety and choice in the look and feel of the user interface is one of our great assets. I trust the Foundation sees that the same way. We allow individual users to select and customize their skin, and it might be in the same spirit to allow individual wikis to choose and customize their default skin. Everyone is aware that a lot of time and money has gone into the development of Vector. But none of that would be lost because a) there are many Wikimedia projects in many language versions and Vector seems to enjoy good support elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), b) Vector remains a selectable skin in the preferences and many users use it even when it's not the default skin. And surely we will get enough feedback from all over the world to fix reported issues with Vector even when single wiki communities reverted to (or decided to continue to use) Monobook as the default skin for unregistered and newly registered users. And at any time (say in a few months) it would be easy to poll the community again to see which skin they prefer as default now. In no scenario would it mean an end to Vector. It might even help Vector being improved more quickly and extensively than it otherwise would. And it would make a good impression if the Foundation granted communities that choice, I think. Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Veronique, thank you for publishing the plan, and for your work on it. Phoebe writes: I would like to encourage everyone to be sure and actually read this plan closely; continued growth turns out to mean nearly doubling the staff next year, and doubling the budget -- rather surprisingly dramatic growth. There is a lot of change that is planned for here, and many of these changes relate to areas that community members do work in. Personally, I would love to see some serious community discussion of this plan both here and at Wikimania next week. Yes, next year's planned growth is dramatic. I wish that this were being done more slowly, though I understand the desire to move decisively and effectively. I also hope we have good public discussions, and have heard it suggested that we make time at Wikimania for large-group discussion and feedback about this and the strategy. I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. The most dramatic change proposed may be the addition of many community-focused staff roles, including 3 proposed hires focused on chapter relations and development, 5 focused on community development, and 1 focused on translation coordination... I believe that these are meant to aid and facilitate the work being done in the community rather than replacing it, but preparing for this sort of change will involve a level of active collaboration between staff and community. There are also tantalizing comments in the plan about such new initiatives in - 'staff and volunteer development' - 'awards and grants' - 'community outreach and volunteer convenings' - a 'stakeholder database' which I expect people would like to hear more about. (will this database let me find community members in Portugal interested in wikisource and library outreach?) Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: Milos and myself will talk in Gdansk about the need to improve technical support for our smallest projects (think Hindi, Malayalam... hundreds of million people will benefit..). I hope that many of us will take part in such discussions! This is one of our greatest opportunities for improvement. What I am also looking for is improved support for projects like the recent Indonesian contest. They have set the standard for a competition involving universities. They doubled the number of active editors and 60% of them is female. Yes. See above re: awards and grants. The Swahili contest was similarly successful (though not in terms of gender ratio; lessons to be shared!) If there is one thing that I find problematic, it is that the WMF office can be observed to operate a dual role; it is the world wide office for the Wikimedia Foundation and it behaves very much like a chapter. If there is one thing I would appreciate it would be if these two activities are separated. This would imho be best realised with the creation of an USA chapter. I agree. I know that Wikimedia NY has had some success, but would like to see a national chapter form. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] three-letter language codes
Did anyone ever consider completely migrating WMF projects to three-letter language codes? Currently two-letter ISO 639-1 code are used whenever possible and three-letter ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 codes are used when a two-letter code is not available. Among the three-letter codes currently having Wikipedias are Sicilian (scn), Kashubian (csb), Nahuatl (nah), Udmurt (udm) and Mari (mhr). Using three-letter codes for all languages seems to me like a more egalitarian approach. Two-letter URL's must, of course, be kept as redirects. Can anyone think about any problems with this? -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] three-letter language codes
Hoi, In the ISO-639-6 there will be two three and four character codes for linguistic entities. English for instance will be known by its two character code en and not eng. Also in the RFC about such things two characters are used in preference to three characters. The point here is that by conforming with the best practices, we make it easy for search engines to correctly find what language is used. Consequently, it has nothing to do with egalitarianism it is just not how things are done when you used these codes. Technically there are other considerations why you want to be careful about the use of codes. Some codes refer to macro languages and these are not eligible for new projects. Thanks, GerardM On 30 June 2010 10:30, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Did anyone ever consider completely migrating WMF projects to three-letter language codes? Currently two-letter ISO 639-1 code are used whenever possible and three-letter ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 codes are used when a two-letter code is not available. Among the three-letter codes currently having Wikipedias are Sicilian (scn), Kashubian (csb), Nahuatl (nah), Udmurt (udm) and Mari (mhr). Using three-letter codes for all languages seems to me like a more egalitarian approach. Two-letter URL's must, of course, be kept as redirects. Can anyone think about any problems with this? -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] three-letter language codes
Amir, I think this is a good idea. For the sake of consistency, we should choose a single standard to follow rather than a hodge-podge of newer standards, older (although still valid) standards, and ad hoc codes we made up on the spot (als, nrm) and custom codes (bat-smg, roa-tara, roa-rup, fiu-vro, map-bms, be-x-old). It also seems potentially confusing to me that we have codes that overlap, for example na.wp and nap.wp, ro.wp and roa-rup.wp, etc. -m. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Did anyone ever consider completely migrating WMF projects to three-letter language codes? Currently two-letter ISO 639-1 code are used whenever possible and three-letter ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 codes are used when a two-letter code is not available. Among the three-letter codes currently having Wikipedias are Sicilian (scn), Kashubian (csb), Nahuatl (nah), Udmurt (udm) and Mari (mhr). Using three-letter codes for all languages seems to me like a more egalitarian approach. Two-letter URL's must, of course, be kept as redirects. Can anyone think about any problems with this? -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
Gerard, I'm not sure such a condescending tone helps anybody. Also, I'm not sure you've understood the intent of Martin's post. I'm under the impression he'd only like to put off implementation of Vector in his community until some problems get worked out, not permanently. Besides, I think the question here is more fundamental than that. -m. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide in a hurry to move away from vector. Effort will be concentrated on further development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an afterthought. Expensive at that. When you choose to stick to monobook you will have more bugs and issues in the long run. As Roan indicated, some new features will just work some won't. Thanks, GerardM On 30 June 2010 09:42, Martin Maurer martinmaure...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Editor communities do not have any fundamental rights to choose how MediaWiki is configured. However, the Foundation's goals are closely aligned with those of the communities, and the Foundation respects the central role communities play in the success of the projects, and so the Foundation has usually honoured such configuration requests. In this case, I would recommend a process of negotiation. Detail your concerns in Bugzilla, and give the developers time to respond to them. A premature vote on the issue would make compromise difficult. The Foundation has spent a lot of time and money on the Vector skin, and it would be a pity to see it thrown away. -- Tim Starling Thanks for your reply, Tim. No worries, in no case would Vector be 'thrown away'. We are happy that Wikipedia offers not just one skin, the default, but multiple skins, and Vector is certainly appreciated as a new option in the list. Variety and choice in the look and feel of the user interface is one of our great assets. I trust the Foundation sees that the same way. We allow individual users to select and customize their skin, and it might be in the same spirit to allow individual wikis to choose and customize their default skin. Everyone is aware that a lot of time and money has gone into the development of Vector. But none of that would be lost because a) there are many Wikimedia projects in many language versions and Vector seems to enjoy good support elsewhere (correct me if I'm wrong), b) Vector remains a selectable skin in the preferences and many users use it even when it's not the default skin. And surely we will get enough feedback from all over the world to fix reported issues with Vector even when single wiki communities reverted to (or decided to continue to use) Monobook as the default skin for unregistered and newly registered users. And at any time (say in a few months) it would be easy to poll the community again to see which skin they prefer as default now. In no scenario would it mean an end to Vector. It might even help Vector being improved more quickly and extensively than it otherwise would. And it would make a good impression if the Foundation granted communities that choice, I think. Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english ws Scriptorium. Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their wofklows better? ^^^ Clearly this email needed 1 more round of human checking. SJ On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Typical about the PGDP workflow are an emphasis on quality above quantity (exemplified in running not 1 or 2 but 3 rounds of human checking of the OCR result - correctness in copying is well above 99.99% for most books) and work being done in page-size chunks rather ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: Andre, this is a great summary -- I've linked to it from the english ws Scriptorium. Do you see opportunities for the two projects to coordinate their wofklows better? I don't understand your use of 'coordinate' in this context. Wikisource has a very lax workflow (it's a wiki), it publishes the scans text immediately, irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images and the text unified from day 0 to eternity. PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow, big projects end up stuck in the rounds (the remaining EB projects are a great example), and they are not published until they make it out of the rounds. The result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. Wikisource and PGDP don't interoperate. We *could*, but when I looked at importing a PGDP project into Wikisource, I put it in the too hard basket. Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor to PGDP. However this isnt a zero-sum game. If the Wikisource projects succeeds in demonstrating the wiki way is a viable approach, the result is different people choosing to work in different workflows/projects, and more reliable etexts being produced. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Effort will be concentrated on further
development of vector and support for other skins will consequently be an
afterthought. Expensive at that.
{{fact}}?
I know quite a bit of effort goes into maintaining Monobook and Modern,
and issues in either get fixed rather quickly. It's only the old skins (Chic,
Simple, CologneBlue) that have been forgotten. And that's hardly the
WMF's fault...they're ignored by volunteer developers as well.
-Chad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images and the text unified from day 0 to eternity. Some works become verified, and reach high OCR quality. PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. Why not send images and text downstream? Wikisource and PGDP don't interoperate. We *could*, but when I looked at importing a PGDP project into Wikisource, I put it in the too hard basket. That's what I mean by 'coordinate'. hard here seems like a one-time hardship followed by a permanent useful coordination. Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor to PGDP. Perhaps we have competing interfaces / workflows. but I expect we would be glad to share 99.99%-verified high-quality texts-unified-with-images if it were easy for both projects to identify that combination of quality and comprehensive data... and would be glad to share metadata so that a WS editor could quickly check to see if there's a PGDP effort covering an edition of the text she is proofing; and vice-versa. I want us to get better, faster, less held up by the idea of coordinating with other projects, because there are much larger projects out there worthy of coordinating with. The annotators who work on the Perseus Project come to mind... but that's truly a harder problem than this one. If the Wikisource projects succeeds in demonstrating the wiki way is a viable approach, the result is different people choosing to work in different workflows/projects, and more reliable etexts being produced. Absolutely. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: irrespective of whether it is verified, OCR quality, or if it is vandalism. However, wikisource keeps the images and the text unified from day 0 to eternity. Some works become verified, and reach high OCR quality. PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. Why not send images and text downstream? Good question! ;-) Storage is one issue. It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts. Wikisource and PGDP don't interoperate. We *could*, but when I looked at importing a PGDP project into Wikisource, I put it in the too hard basket. That's what I mean by 'coordinate'. hard here seems like a one-time hardship followed by a permanent useful coordination. They don't have an 'export' function, and I doubt they are going to build one so that they can interoperate with us. My 'import' function was a scraper; not something that can be used in a large scale without their permission. In the end, it is simpler to avoid starting WS projects that would duplicate unfinished PGDP projects. There are plenty of works that have not been transcribed yet ;-) Wikisource is trying to become a credible competitor to PGDP. Perhaps we have competing interfaces / workflows. This is like saying that Wikipedia and Brittanica have competing interfaces / workflows. The wikisource workflow is a *symptom* of it being a wiki, with all that entails. There is a lot more than merely the workflow which distinguishes the two projects. .. but I expect we would be glad to share 99.99%-verified high-quality texts-unified-with-images if it were easy for both projects to identify that combination of quality and comprehensive data. Good luck with that. PGDP publishes etexts via PG. If PGDP gives images+text to Wikisource for projects that are stuck in their rounds, it becomes published online immediately at whatever stage it is at - its a wiki. That is at odds with the objective of PGDP, unless they are completely abandoning the project. It is more likely that PGDP will release images+text at the same time they publish the etext to PG. The best way for PGDP to do this is to produce a djvu with images and verified text, and then upload it to archive.org so everyone benefits. and would be glad to share metadata so that a WS editor could quickly check to see if there's a PGDP effort covering an edition of the text she is proofing; and vice-versa. IIRC, obtaining the list of ongoing PGDP projects requires a PGDP account, but anyone can create an account. The WS project list is in google. ;-) -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: PGDP has a very strict and arduous workflow... The result is quality, however only the text is sent downstream. Why not send images and text downstream? Because PGDP produces for Project Gutenberg, which publishes text and html versions, not scans. Perhaps we have competing interfaces / workflows. but I expect we would be glad to share 99.99%-verified high-quality texts-unified-with-images if it were easy for both projects to identify that combination of quality and comprehensive data... and would be glad to share metadata so that a WS editor could quickly check to see if there's a PGDP effort covering an edition of the text she is proofing; and vice-versa. For the PGDP side, it's possible to check at PGDP itself (one will need to get a login for that, but it's as free and unencumbered as the same on Wikimedia), but there is also a useful superset at http://www.dprice48.freeserve.co.uk/GutIP.html (warning! I'm talking of a 7 megabyte html file here). This contains, sorted by author (books by more than one author given multiple times) all books that have a clearance for Project Gutenberg. For cooperation, one idea could be to get the PGDP material either after the P3 stage or after the F2 stage. As long as a project is still active, it isn't hard at all to get both the text and the scan pages. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Good question! ;-) Storage is one issue. It would be interesting to estimate the storage requirements of Wikisource if we had produced the PGDP etexts. I think it is the main reason; however, a back-of-the-envelope calculation (20.000 books, 300 pages, 100k per page; the first is quite a good estimate, the other two could be a factor 2 off) tells me that the total storage requirements would be measured in 100s of gigabytes - which means that one or two state of the art hard disks should be enough to contain it. They don't have an 'export' function, and I doubt they are going to build one so that they can interoperate with us. My 'import' function was a scraper; not something that can be used in a large scale without their permission. On the other hand, if you _do_ get permission, there might well be a more elegant ftp-based method. The wikisource workflow is a *symptom* of it being a wiki, with all that entails. There is a lot more than merely the workflow which distinguishes the two projects. Certainly. I think the deeper-laying difference is one of attitude, which as you write is for WS a symptom of being a wiki. As a wiki, WS uses such attitudes/principles as make it easy for people to contribute, publish early, publish often, let people do what they want, as long as it's a step, however small forward. PGDP on the other hand derives its attitudes/principles from a wish to create high quality end products. As such it uses check and doublecheck, limit the amount of projects we work on, quality control and division of tasks. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] PG
DP Scans are available at http://www.pgdp.org/ols/index.php Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On 30 June 2010 09:28, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes: If there is one thing that I find problematic, it is that the WMF office can be observed to operate a dual role; it is the world wide office for the Wikimedia Foundation and it behaves very much like a chapter. If there is one thing I would appreciate it would be if these two activities are separated. This would imho be best realised with the creation of an USA chapter. I agree. I know that Wikimedia NY has had some success, but would like to see a national chapter form. I agree as well. I think we need a US chapter for the good of the movement generally. Not having one distorts everything. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Sam Klein writes: I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. Just to be clear about this, I read Sam here as saying something like there is a potential risk that we will be unable to acculturate new staff as we grow. This of course is true -- and it's even true when growth is slow! But in practice the Foundation takes this risk very seriously, and takes pains to promote the acculturation of new staff, not just to Foundation culture but to the larger community. One way we do this is by sending new staff to Wikimania, if it makes sense to do so, and/or promoting new staff's interaction with the community in other ways. Attendees at Wikimania this year will see a number of staff who haven't been there before -- everyone is urged to engage staff members in conversations about our work together, or other topics of common interest. (I'll be there too -- first Wikimania since Taiwan!) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Thanks, GerardM On 30 June 2010 16:13, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Sam Klein writes: I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. Just to be clear about this, I read Sam here as saying something like there is a potential risk that we will be unable to acculturate new staff as we grow. This of course is true -- and it's even true when growth is slow! But in practice the Foundation takes this risk very seriously, and takes pains to promote the acculturation of new staff, not just to Foundation culture but to the larger community. One way we do this is by sending new staff to Wikimania, if it makes sense to do so, and/or promoting new staff's interaction with the community in other ways. Attendees at Wikimania this year will see a number of staff who haven't been there before -- everyone is urged to engage staff members in conversations about our work together, or other topics of common interest. (I'll be there too -- first Wikimania since Taiwan!) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Dear Gerard, I've never known a VIP environment that would accept me as a member. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Hoi Mike, You are a VIP who does not need to hide in any environment. I will be happy to hear your Fox Dei among the Fox Populi. Thanks, Gerard On 30 June 2010 16:49, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Dear Gerard, I've never known a VIP environment that would accept me as a member. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On 30 June 2010 15:13, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Sam Klein writes: I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. Just to be clear about this, I read Sam here as saying something like there is a potential risk that we will be unable to acculturate new staff as we grow. This of course is true -- and it's even true when growth is slow! But in practice the Foundation takes this risk very seriously, and takes pains to promote the acculturation of new staff, not just to Foundation culture but to the larger community. One way we do this is by sending new staff to Wikimania, if it makes sense to do so, and/or promoting new staff's interaction with the community in other ways. Attendees at Wikimania this year will see a number of staff who haven't been there before -- everyone is urged to engage staff members in conversations about our work together, or other topics of common interest. (I'll be there too -- first Wikimania since Taiwan!) --Mike ___ Will the new staff be wearing some kind of identifying marker so we can spot them? Perhaps a silly hat? Or, could they walk around carrying a board that says Talk to me about copyright edge-cases! 'm not so much sure that that would be good acculturation but it would definitely be a baptism by fire :-) Seriously though, perhaps the opening keynote or some other time could be used to ask new staff to stand up and be briefly introduced? -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. I hereby find this grossly insulting. Not spending time with Gerard does not mean that someone is hiding from everyone else. I found staff always available and roaming in general areas in previous wikimanias, and we're not here to judge how they should spend their evenings and nights. Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
I hope you mean Vox rather than Fox. I don't think Fox currently has any connection to Deus. --Mike On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi Mike, You are a VIP who does not need to hide in any environment. I will be happy to hear your Fox Dei among the Fox Populi. Thanks, Gerard On 30 June 2010 16:49, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I welcome many members of the Wikimedia staff joining us in Gdansk but PLEASE do not hide in a VIP environment like happened on previous Wikimanias. Dear Gerard, I've never known a VIP environment that would accept me as a member. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Hi! I hope you mean Vox rather than Fox. I don't think Fox currently has any connection to Deus. Tell that to Rupert Murdoch Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, When you consider the source of much of the donations, you will find that they have been coming mainly from the United States. Chapters are becoming more and more active in fundraising. The Dutch chapter for instance plans on professionalising its operations and fundraising staff has the highest priority. It performed much better, one of the reasons is that IDEAL, a payment method for the Internet in the Netherlands, was implemented. I am sure that with increased support from the WMF not only but also the Dutch will raise substantially more money this time around. When you ask for an endowment, you indicate an opinion that the current levels of support for our projects suffice. I do not share that opinion and, I am happy to find indications in the planning that this opinion is supported in the plans for 2010/11. Milos and myself will talk in Gdansk about the need to improve technical support for our smallest projects (think Hindi, Malayalam... hundreds of million people will benefit..). Some of it is hard core language support and some are changes to operating projects in order to raise traffic and usability for readers. Hi Gerard, A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. Someone was talking to me the other day about the differences between Wikimedia and large universities, such as the one where I work. You don't mind criticizing the university governance, he said; in part because you can't imagine it ever going away, no matter what. It's true, and I want Wikimedia to be that stable. In fact, I want it to be *more* stable than most American universities are at the moment -- certainly more than mine! -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Hoi, When we raise money, we have a choice; either we spend the money and we communicate what we plan to do or we build reserves for a rainy day. In the Netherlands there are several charities that find it much harder to raise funds for any purpose now that they are known to build huge reserves. This was made worse when they wanted to raise funds after many of their investments went sour. As I understand our finances, we forecast a great need and at the same time are frugal spending realising the communicated goals. Consequently there is an operational reserve. The Wikimedia Foundation is not a university and consequently it does not operate along those lines. Mind you, an American university is a completely different beast then for instance a Dutch university and our universities have as respectable reputation while their funding is not reliant on huge endowments. In my opinion we are on a mission and we should share this mission as widely as possible. This is why it is not acceptable that so much of the our finances rely on USA donations. We need chapters that take part in everything that makes the WMF possible. This includes fund raising and operating programs that benefit our projects and free knowledge in general. When people, organisations want to contribute to an endowment, they should do so separately from our fund raisers. These are to enable us to do what we aim to do. This will gain us more contributions then building large reserves. Thanks, GerardM PS you is the reader On 30 June 2010 17:38, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, When you consider the source of much of the donations, you will find that they have been coming mainly from the United States. Chapters are becoming more and more active in fundraising. The Dutch chapter for instance plans on professionalising its operations and fundraising staff has the highest priority. It performed much better, one of the reasons is that IDEAL, a payment method for the Internet in the Netherlands, was implemented. I am sure that with increased support from the WMF not only but also the Dutch will raise substantially more money this time around. When you ask for an endowment, you indicate an opinion that the current levels of support for our projects suffice. I do not share that opinion and, I am happy to find indications in the planning that this opinion is supported in the plans for 2010/11. Milos and myself will talk in Gdansk about the need to improve technical support for our smallest projects (think Hindi, Malayalam... hundreds of million people will benefit..). Some of it is hard core language support and some are changes to operating projects in order to raise traffic and usability for readers. Hi Gerard, A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. Someone was talking to me the other day about the differences between Wikimedia and large universities, such as the one where I work. You don't mind criticizing the university governance, he said; in part because you can't imagine it ever going away, no matter what. It's true, and I want Wikimedia to be that stable. In fact, I want it to be *more* stable than most American universities are at the moment -- certainly more than mine! -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
It struck me that the Foundation has decided to concentrate on the large public, the small donators, and not seek much further to approach big spenders or make money by business partnerships. This is a statement not only about our history and our future, and also about our character as movement. Is it too much to call this an event of historical importance? Kind regards Ziko 2010/6/30 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When we raise money, we have a choice; either we spend the money and we communicate what we plan to do or we build reserves for a rainy day. In the Netherlands there are several charities that find it much harder to raise funds for any purpose now that they are known to build huge reserves. This was made worse when they wanted to raise funds after many of their investments went sour. As I understand our finances, we forecast a great need and at the same time are frugal spending realising the communicated goals. Consequently there is an operational reserve. The Wikimedia Foundation is not a university and consequently it does not operate along those lines. Mind you, an American university is a completely different beast then for instance a Dutch university and our universities have as respectable reputation while their funding is not reliant on huge endowments. In my opinion we are on a mission and we should share this mission as widely as possible. This is why it is not acceptable that so much of the our finances rely on USA donations. We need chapters that take part in everything that makes the WMF possible. This includes fund raising and operating programs that benefit our projects and free knowledge in general. When people, organisations want to contribute to an endowment, they should do so separately from our fund raisers. These are to enable us to do what we aim to do. This will gain us more contributions then building large reserves. Thanks, GerardM PS you is the reader On 30 June 2010 17:38, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, When you consider the source of much of the donations, you will find that they have been coming mainly from the United States. Chapters are becoming more and more active in fundraising. The Dutch chapter for instance plans on professionalising its operations and fundraising staff has the highest priority. It performed much better, one of the reasons is that IDEAL, a payment method for the Internet in the Netherlands, was implemented. I am sure that with increased support from the WMF not only but also the Dutch will raise substantially more money this time around. When you ask for an endowment, you indicate an opinion that the current levels of support for our projects suffice. I do not share that opinion and, I am happy to find indications in the planning that this opinion is supported in the plans for 2010/11. Milos and myself will talk in Gdansk about the need to improve technical support for our smallest projects (think Hindi, Malayalam... hundreds of million people will benefit..). Some of it is hard core language support and some are changes to operating projects in order to raise traffic and usability for readers. Hi Gerard, A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. Someone was talking to me the other day about the differences between Wikimedia and large universities, such as the one where I work. You don't mind criticizing the university governance, he said; in part because you can't imagine it ever going away, no matter what. It's true, and I want Wikimedia to be that stable. In fact, I want it to be *more* stable than most American universities are at the moment -- certainly more than mine! -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. That was from me, and I obviously oversimplified my explanation in an attempt to be concise. Gerard and Ziko have already raised critical points that entered into the decision to focus on many small donors as an ongoing strategy. To expand on this, see this thread started by Sue a few weeks ago on strategy wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Revenue_sources_5703 In regards to the endowment question, as you note, the motivation for an endowment drive is long-term sustainability and some level of protection from recession. The cost of doing an endowment drive is enormous. There is usually an 18 months ramp up time simply to start the drive, and you need a huge staff to manage it. That work comes at the expense of other work. Furthermore, endowment drives also typically court high wealth donors aggressively. We do that now, but that's not our focus, and I think that a lot of good things emerge from prioritizing many small donors. What the Financial Sustainability Task Force (with help from the Bridgespan Group) found was that: 1. Our revenue has grown significantly over the past few years, despite the recession and a tiny fundraising team that has not grown. This is because we aren't close to tapping our potential, and it also speaks to the fundraising team continually getting smarter in how it works. 2. When we compare Wikimedia Foundation to other similar nonprofits, it's clear that our potential revenue is much larger, again despite the recession. 3. In particular, our potential is huge in other countries besides the U.S., which several people have already pointed out in this thread. Courting donations in other countries has a lot of positive benefits. It helps strengthen our chapters, and it increases international participation and ownership into our projects. In summary, it's not clear that an endowment drive is a more effective sustainability strategy than our current model, and the opportunity cost would be much higher. If you look at the targets at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Goal:_Stabilize_the_Infrastructure you'll notice that the proposed financial goal is listed as the number of donors, not as a revenue figure. That speaks to the importance of getting many people to contribute, which I think jives well with our community's philosophy in general. =Eugene -- == Eugene Eric Kim http://xri.net/=eekim Blue Oxen Associates http://www.blueoxen.com/ == ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
Thanks Eugene! This is essentially what I would've written, had I gotten there first. So thank you. I will just add: everyone wants an endowment campaign -- the issue is not whether to do it; the issue is when to do it. We're still developing our pool of donors (especially the chapters, who are with the exception of the German chapter very new to fundraising), and we are still finding our voice when it comes to fundraising. Given that --and given that we have lots of work to do improving our service to readers, and donors are typically more motivated to fund necessary work, before they'll fund permanence -- that's why we're currently focusing on growing the number of donors. Walking before running. And yes, Ziko, thanks for calling out the new revenue strategy: it's significant. I am really grateful that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are willing to fund the work we do: it's by far the best model for us from an ideological standpoint. Most non-profits are in two completely unrelated businesses: the business of mission activity, and the business of revenue generation - we are lucky that for us, mission activity and revenue generation can be 100 per cent aligned. I am proud and happy about our new revenue strategy. We're in an enviable position, in that we don't need to make unhappy compromises -- instead, we have the luxury of being able to focus on the actual mission work we're trying to get done :-) Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:45:49 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. That was from me, and I obviously oversimplified my explanation in an attempt to be concise. Gerard and Ziko have already raised critical points that entered into the decision to focus on many small donors as an ongoing strategy. To expand on this, see this thread started by Sue a few weeks ago on strategy wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Revenue_sources_5703 In regards to the endowment question, as you note, the motivation for an endowment drive is long-term sustainability and some level of protection from recession. The cost of doing an endowment drive is enormous. There is usually an 18 months ramp up time simply to start the drive, and you need a huge staff to manage it. That work comes at the expense of other work. Furthermore, endowment drives also typically court high wealth donors aggressively. We do that now, but that's not our focus, and I think that a lot of good things emerge from prioritizing many small donors. What the Financial Sustainability Task Force (with help from the Bridgespan Group) found was that: 1. Our revenue has grown significantly over the past few years, despite the recession and a tiny fundraising team that has not grown. This is because we aren't close to tapping our potential, and it also speaks to the fundraising team continually getting smarter in how it works. 2. When we compare Wikimedia Foundation to other similar nonprofits, it's clear that our potential revenue is much larger, again despite the recession. 3. In particular, our potential is huge in other countries besides the U.S., which several people have already pointed out in this thread. Courting donations in other countries has a lot of positive benefits. It helps strengthen our chapters, and it increases international participation and ownership into our projects. In summary, it's not clear that an endowment drive is a more effective sustainability strategy than our current model, and the opportunity cost would be much higher. If you look at the targets at: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Goal:_Stabilize_the_Infrastructure you'll notice that the proposed financial goal is listed as the number of donors, not as a revenue figure. That speaks to the importance of getting many people to contribute, which I think jives well with our community's philosophy in general. =Eugene --
Re: [Foundation-l] PG
Thanks, Klaus. Do you know why people say it is hard to associate scans to a specific edition of a work? SJ On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: DP Scans are available at http://www.pgdp.org/ols/index.php Klaus Graf ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: Sam Klein writes: I do think there are more risks inherent in this sort of growth than are listed in the 'potential risks' section -- for instance, inability to acculturate new staff due to aggressive growth -- and we should be alert to these risks to avoid them. Just to be clear about this, I read Sam here as saying something like there is a potential risk that we will be unable to acculturate new staff as we grow. This of course is true -- and it's even true when growth is slow! Precisely :-) But in practice the Foundation takes this risk very seriously, and takes pains to promote the acculturation of new staff, not just to Foundation culture but to the larger community. Yes. The influx of staff at Wikimania this year will be a sight to see... I look forward to seeing you there. Ziko writes: It struck me that the Foundation has decided to concentrate on the large public, the small donators, and not seek much further to approach big spenders or make money by business partnerships. This is a statement not only about our history and our future, and also about our character as movement. Is it too much to call this an event of historical importance? Yes, it is a big deal. I think it helps clarify the Foundation's philosophy as well, unifying our donors and general audience in a satisfying way -- as Sue says, we are lucky to be able to make that decision. Eugene writes: The cost of doing an endowment drive is enormous. There is usually an 18 months ramp up time simply to start the drive, and you need a huge staff to manage it. That work comes at the expense of other work. Furthermore, endowment drives also typically court high wealth donors aggressively. This seems like an extreme type of 'endowment drive' - just as we don't court high wealth donors in general we would not necessarily need to for this. Setting up a dedicated fund for supporting core services, for instance (whatever you call it) need not have elaborate staff, 18-month ramp ups, or other extraordinary overhead... I think it's good that an endowment drive is being planned for the future - I hope a target for it shows up in our five-year timeline. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
Thanks everyone for your comments thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan, we will have a better idea of what level our operating budget will need to be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We will have done some experimentation with initiatives like geographic investments and the addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't know what our optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level we can sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot of factors and we will be able to respond appropriately to new information, changes in circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year and future years. For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment issue well. I want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the ongoing annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the annual earnings on the endowment may be allocated to help support operations but it is usually a small percentage. In the past, one could estimate 8-10% earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and roll the rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. Alas, these days, 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it into perspective, if we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings from an endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. Endowments can be very useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the future but it is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire operating budget each year. Veronique susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Eugene! This is essentially what I would've written, had I gotten there first. So thank you. I will just add: everyone wants an endowment campaign -- the issue is not whether to do it; the issue is when to do it. We're still developing our pool of donors (especially the chapters, who are with the exception of the German chapter very new to fundraising), and we are still finding our voice when it comes to fundraising. Given that --and given that we have lots of work to do improving our service to readers, and donors are typically more motivated to fund necessary work, before they'll fund permanence -- that's why we're currently focusing on growing the number of donors. Walking before running. And yes, Ziko, thanks for calling out the new revenue strategy: it's significant. I am really grateful that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are willing to fund the work we do: it's by far the best model for us from an ideological standpoint. Most non-profits are in two completely unrelated businesses: the business of mission activity, and the business of revenue generation - we are lucky that for us, mission activity and revenue generation can be 100 per cent aligned. I am proud and happy about our new revenue strategy. We're in an enviable position, in that we don't need to make unhappy compromises -- instead, we have the luxury of being able to focus on the actual mission work we're trying to get done :-) Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:45:49 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. That was from me, and I obviously oversimplified my explanation in an attempt to be concise. Gerard and Ziko have already raised critical points that entered into the decision to focus on many small donors as an ongoing strategy. To expand on this, see this thread started by Sue a few weeks ago on strategy wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_Plan/Movement_Priorities#Revenue_sources_5703 In regards to the endowment question, as you note, the motivation for an endowment drive is long-term sustainability and some level of protection from recession. The cost of doing an endowment drive is enormous. There is usually an 18 months ramp up time simply to start the drive, and you need a huge staff to manage
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
Thanks Veronique Eugene for your comprehensive thoughtful replies re: this issue. It seems clear that an endowment (if there is ever one developed) and good fundraising is not an either/or proposition. There is also additional discussion going on about related topics on this talk page: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategic_Plan/Role_of_the_WMF best, Phoebe On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks everyone for your comments thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan, we will have a better idea of what level our operating budget will need to be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We will have done some experimentation with initiatives like geographic investments and the addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't know what our optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level we can sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot of factors and we will be able to respond appropriately to new information, changes in circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year and future years. For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment issue well. I want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the ongoing annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the annual earnings on the endowment may be allocated to help support operations but it is usually a small percentage. In the past, one could estimate 8-10% earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and roll the rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. Alas, these days, 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it into perspective, if we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings from an endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. Endowments can be very useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the future but it is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire operating budget each year. Veronique susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Eugene! This is essentially what I would've written, had I gotten there first. So thank you. I will just add: everyone wants an endowment campaign -- the issue is not whether to do it; the issue is when to do it. We're still developing our pool of donors (especially the chapters, who are with the exception of the German chapter very new to fundraising), and we are still finding our voice when it comes to fundraising. Given that --and given that we have lots of work to do improving our service to readers, and donors are typically more motivated to fund necessary work, before they'll fund permanence -- that's why we're currently focusing on growing the number of donors. Walking before running. And yes, Ziko, thanks for calling out the new revenue strategy: it's significant. I am really grateful that hundreds of thousands of ordinary people are willing to fund the work we do: it's by far the best model for us from an ideological standpoint. Most non-profits are in two completely unrelated businesses: the business of mission activity, and the business of revenue generation - we are lucky that for us, mission activity and revenue generation can be 100 per cent aligned. I am proud and happy about our new revenue strategy. We're in an enviable position, in that we don't need to make unhappy compromises -- instead, we have the luxury of being able to focus on the actual mission work we're trying to get done :-) Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:45:49 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: A small point -- I don't know who the you refers to here -- me? -- but when *I* ask for an endowment, it is not because I think the current levels of support suffice; that's a different question. It's because I don't want the long-term support for Wikimedia to be dependent on our ability to fundraise increasingly large amounts from year to year. Fundraising above and beyond such an endowment is fine and good and necessary as well. I have heard that raising an endowment was rejected by the strategy process because it was hard; I don't know what that means, exactly, but raising an extra $20M in a recession is hard, too. That was from me, and I obviously oversimplified my explanation in an attempt to be concise. Gerard and Ziko have already raised critical points that entered into the decision to focus on many small donors as an ongoing strategy. To expand on this, see this thread started by Sue a
[Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at these complex and significant issues. Robert Harris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
G'day Robert :-) I write as a wiki user who's been advocating for change in the area of sexual content on wmf projects for a few years now, and personally I'm very happy at the direction the foundation has taken in commissioning a third party (that'd be you) to investigate and report etc. on this issue. I believe I'm generally considered to hold quite strong views in this area, but what I would support (and will discuss throughout this process :-) is a system which discourages wmf volunteers who are minors from accessing or maintaining sexually explicit material, some sort of age verification system (a la flickr) for public viewers, and that the foundation goes above what it considers to be its minimal legal requirements for ensuring sexually explicit material has been uploaded with the consent of the participants, and only depicts those of legal age. I checked out what I think is your website here; http://www.rhresources.com/- and although your news and blog seem a little over a year old, my main concern is that you appear to have a series of little grey men jumping out of your head ;-) Welcome aboard the unique ride that is wmf wikis, and I look forward to following your work in this area cheers, Peter, PM. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at these complex and significant issues. Robert Harris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront? Why not apply the same logic to all infractions. If you run a red light three times in your life, then you may not ever drive again. If you leave your underwear on the floor three times, then you cannot wear clothes. How exactly would you impose a you cannot use the internet restriction anyway? If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
On 1 July 2010 00:38, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at these complex and significant issues. Robert Harris So will Dory Carr-Harris be attending the next london meetup: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/35 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PG
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Klaus. Do you know why people say it is hard to associate scans to a specific edition of a work? SJ http://www.pgdp.org/ols//tools/biblio.php?id=4846dea7da817 Display of images from this source has not been permitted. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes: If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are too much. The seeders you mean the people who actually load the material to the net? If so, no one is stopping the copyright *owners* from filing lawsuits against Jane Doe. So exactly what damage are you trying to contain here? They know perfectly well how to do it, they've been doing it. If you can't actually get 85 million dollars out of a 13-year-old girl, well then that's your tough luck, welcome to jurisprudence U.S. style. And if after you keep attacking housewives and children, your image is horrible, well that's your tough luck as well. If people hate you because you're trying to protect a work on which you haven't *actually* made any income in thirty-five years that's your tough luck. I shouldn't use the work luck however in this case, since it implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point, where any holder *only* gets ten years. That's it. Ten years to make your money then it's public domain. We can call it the Knock it off or else proposal. Will Tough Love Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
Dear Geni -- Sounds like a fine idea. rh Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 01:40:06 +0100 From: geni...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content On 1 July 2010 00:38, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote: Hello, Wikimedians. My name is Robert Harris and I'm the consultant the Board has asked to look at the various issues around potentially objectionable content as outlined by the Board resolution and FAQs posted to Foundation-l June 24, 2010. I've created a page on Meta-Wiki (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) to serve as a place where I can post the research I'm collecting for the study and also hope that that page can act as a forum for discussions around the various issues I've been asked to consider. The page includes my own series of FAQs to help introduce myself. Hope to hear from you as I look at these complex and significant issues. Robert Harris So will Dory Carr-Harris be attending the next london meetup: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/35 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
--- On Wed, 6/30/10, Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org wrote: From: Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite To: susanpgard...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:53 PM Thanks everyone for your comments thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan, we will have a better idea of what level our operating budget will need to be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We will have done some experimentation with initiatives like geographic investments and the addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't know what our optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level we can sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot of factors and we will be able to respond appropriately to new information, changes in circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year and future years. For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment issue well. I want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the ongoing annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the annual earnings on the endowment may be allocated to help support operations but it is usually a small percentage. In the past, one could estimate 8-10% earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and roll the rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. Alas, these days, 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it into perspective, if we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings from an endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. Endowments can be very useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the future but it is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire operating budget each year. I don't think anyone would expect an endowment to fund all that is being done in the current budget. I have always thought of the endowment issue as being about always keeping the lights on. Ensuring that the content will remain accessible in some worst case scenario. Access is probably the weakest link in the whole copyleft paradigm. I think most of us can name examples of how contract law has locked up what copyright law couldn't touch. WMF has not always been as stable as it is right now. Maybe it is hard for all the people who joined the movement during this upswing of stability to understand quite how some of the earlier adopters feel about the endowment. I think it is about people feeling that the work that we have all done is secure. Since the WMF is not moving in the direction of an endowment right now, it would be nice if they could highlight some other things that secure what has already been accomplished. The endowment is not about just about funding, I think it is probably also symbolic of endurance to many people. There is a worry about the content remaining available in the long term. If there is not an endowment to donate towards, I think people could use something else to symbolize a commitment to the future endurance of the content that has been gathered. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Please read what Tim wrote; he suggested for you to take time and not decide in a hurry to move away from vector. Yes, I read what Tim wrote, but I beg to differ on that suggestion and would like to explain why. The issue is urgent now (we have switched to Vector and get massive complaints about it) and any fixes to Vector will take their time. It is not just one or two small details that can be fixed quickly. Rolling back the default skin would be a quick solution that would *buy us the time needed* to fix the issues with Vector. We're not talking about a long-term decision to keep Monobook as default. Development on Vector will continue and once Vector is sufficiently improved it is likely that a clear majority in the community will prefer it to Monobook and the switch could then be made driven by the community. Tim's suggestion, on the other hand, would mean that we should urge the community and our readers to be patient and wait another couple of months (while using Vector as default) and then, after Vector has been improved, we might perhaps poll the community about whether they still want to switch back or not. The end result of this approach might be the same (we have an improved Vector skin as default), but the process is much more frustrating. The worst thing about it might be that the community and our readers would feel as if a new skin was introduced without asking and possibly against the will of a majority of those who are affected. That would not look good on us. Martin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Potentially Objectionable Content
yeah - oops! Aplogies to both Robert Harris' - fwiw, RH has updated here; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Robertmharris and here's a CBC info blurb for the curious... http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/programs.html?I_HEAR_MUSIC cheers, Peter, PM. On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:57 PM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: snip I think you have the wrong Robert Harris, PM. Robert L instead of Robert M. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
We are secure because of the volunteers, not the funding. If the foundation were to disappear, the project could continue. The only funding actually necessary is for the physical operation of the project. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 6/30/10, Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org wrote: From: Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite To: susanpgard...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:53 PM Thanks everyone for your comments thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan, we will have a better idea of what level our operating budget will need to be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We will have done some experimentation with initiatives like geographic investments and the addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't know what our optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level we can sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot of factors and we will be able to respond appropriately to new information, changes in circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year and future years. For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment issue well. I want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the ongoing annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the annual earnings on the endowment may be allocated to help support operations but it is usually a small percentage. In the past, one could estimate 8-10% earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and roll the rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. Alas, these days, 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it into perspective, if we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings from an endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. Endowments can be very useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the future but it is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire operating budget each year. I don't think anyone would expect an endowment to fund all that is being done in the current budget. I have always thought of the endowment issue as being about always keeping the lights on. Ensuring that the content will remain accessible in some worst case scenario. Access is probably the weakest link in the whole copyleft paradigm. I think most of us can name examples of how contract law has locked up what copyright law couldn't touch. WMF has not always been as stable as it is right now. Maybe it is hard for all the people who joined the movement during this upswing of stability to understand quite how some of the earlier adopters feel about the endowment. I think it is about people feeling that the work that we have all done is secure. Since the WMF is not moving in the direction of an endowment right now, it would be nice if they could highlight some other things that secure what has already been accomplished. The endowment is not about just about funding, I think it is probably also symbolic of endurance to many people. There is a worry about the content remaining available in the long term. If there is not an endowment to donate towards, I think people could use something else to symbolize a commitment to the future endurance of the content that has been gathered. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] three-letter language codes
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Amir, I think this is a good idea. For the sake of consistency, we should choose a single standard to follow rather than a hodge-podge of newer standards, older (although still valid) standards, and ad hoc codes we made up on the spot (als, nrm) and custom codes (bat-smg, roa-tara, roa-rup, fiu-vro, map-bms, be-x-old). It also seems potentially confusing to me that we have codes that overlap, for example na.wp and nap.wp, ro.wp and roa-rup.wp, etc. -m. Aside from simplifying the process of selecting new language codes, what value does consistency have in this situation? Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
on 6/30/10 10:06 PM, David Goodman at dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: We are secure because of the volunteers, not the funding. If the foundation were to disappear, the project could continue. The only funding actually necessary is for the physical operation of the project. Yes! Excellent insight, David. Marc Riddell On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 6/30/10, Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org wrote: From: Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite To: susanpgard...@gmail.com, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 3:53 PM Thanks everyone for your comments thus far (and for the thank yous too :)). As we progress through accomplishing the goals of the strategic plan, we will have a better idea of what level our operating budget will need to be to make everything happen and be sustainable. We will have done some experimentation with initiatives like geographic investments and the addition of more roles to support chapters. We don't know what our optimal operating level will be and what fundraising level we can sustain. We have made some predictions based on a lot of factors and we will be able to respond appropriately to new information, changes in circumstances, etc. as we progress through this fiscal year and future years. For the endowment, Eugene really summed up the endowment issue well. I want to point out that typically endowments do not fund the ongoing annual expenses of an organization. A portion of the annual earnings on the endowment may be allocated to help support operations but it is usually a small percentage. In the past, one could estimate 8-10% earnings each year and then allocate some to operations and roll the rest back to the endowment to continue to grow it. Alas, these days, 8-10% returns are hard to come by. Just to put it into perspective, if we were to support a $20 million budget with 5% earnings from an endowment, we would need $400 million dollars. Endowments can be very useful and we will continue to analyze this option for the future but it is unlikely that an endowment would ever provide our entire operating budget each year. I don't think anyone would expect an endowment to fund all that is being done in the current budget. I have always thought of the endowment issue as being about always keeping the lights on. Ensuring that the content will remain accessible in some worst case scenario. Access is probably the weakest link in the whole copyleft paradigm. I think most of us can name examples of how contract law has locked up what copyright law couldn't touch. WMF has not always been as stable as it is right now. Maybe it is hard for all the people who joined the movement during this upswing of stability to understand quite how some of the earlier adopters feel about the endowment. I think it is about people feeling that the work that we have all done is secure. Since the WMF is not moving in the direction of an endowment right now, it would be nice if they could highlight some other things that secure what has already been accomplished. The endowment is not about just about funding, I think it is probably also symbolic of endurance to many people. There is a worry about the content remaining available in the long term. If there is not an endowment to donate towards, I think people could use something else to symbolize a commitment to the future endurance of the content that has been gathered. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday
Dear All, Sue Gardner will be conducting IRC Office hours on Friday, July 23 22:30 UTC. Regards, James T. Owen On Jun 28, 2010, at 6:29 PM, susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: I'm actually not sure if I managed to get scheduled for office hours anytime soon -- James has been a bit swamped with board meeting prep, so I haven't asked him. But I'll CC Cary and James on this note, and maybe they can get it fitted into my sked sometime pre-Wikimania. That'd be good, I think, since the 2010-11 plan will be published soon, and I'd be happy to talk about it. (I'm in Madrid pre-Wikimania too, which would make Euro-centric office hours way more doable for me than they normally are.) Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:55:50 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation- l...@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] final (*) strategy office hours on Tuesday On 29 June 2010 01:50, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com wrote: Our final (*) strategic planning office hours .. ... * Several people have discussed continuing the weekly office hours beyond the scope of this project, which I think is a wonderful idea. I'm sure this will also be discussed tomorrow. Sue said she would like to attend an IRC office hours. http://old.nabble.com/WMF-investment-strategy-td28837343.html Is this still on the cards? The office hours (a QA session with a particular member of WMF staff) are different from the strategy office hours (a weekly meeting of anyone interested in the strategy project). The strategy office hours are coming to an end, but the office hours will continue. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l James Owen Executive Assistant Wikimedia Foundation Office +1.415.839.6885 x 604 Mobile +1.415.509.5444 Fax +1.415.882.0495 Email- jo...@wikimedia.org Website- www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
