Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annual Audit of the Wikimedia Foundation
Michael Snow, 28/12/2012 00:12: Donor funds need to be managed wisely, but simply performing a Google search for the best interest rates is not all that useful a tool here. If somebody wants to come to Garfield and tell him, "I've had some of my own money in a CD with Bank or Credit Union X for the last 6 months, I've been getting X% and I'm about to renew at a similar rate, and I know they can handle business accounts like yours", I think information like that might have more practical value. In the meantime, I won't try to micromanage the work of our financial professionals without having clear options for improvement ready to suggest. All very true, but even specific suggestions wouldn't be that useful. The WMF bank account is still rather small, but now big enough to be possibly worth a call for bids (or whatever the name in the USA); perhaps one was already done, and that should be enough to eliminate any doubt. The best offer doesn't always come from where one would expect. Usual random example, my university did a very exacting one a few years ago and the best offer was significantly better than the average, but certainly not spectacular: little more than 700 k€/y for cash varying typically in the 70-90 M€ range, 150 at best and 30 at worst. Services/fees are probably more important even though the WMF's needs are rather simple; for instance, requiring scholarships recipients to have PayPal is/was quite dismal. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman wrote: >> The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. > > I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the > April fundraiser being discussed? It means multivariate testing in X languages is siginificantly more resource intensive than A/B testing in one language. Impractibly so for the fundraising team, IMHO. At least that is what I meant with that plus the following statement that you removed. The meaning required both to be read together. You are subscribed to the same mailing list I am, yet you have been regularly asking people to dig out information that I myself am well aware of. And I do not get any information any place else than this list (except maybe wikitech-l which I am currently months and months behind on). Pay attention or search your own emails. You may not realize this, but your recent messages seem rather disingenuous. Do your own research. Reply individually to others with the full context intact. Actually address the points of the message you reply to straight on, instead of sending the thread on a tangent. Or else, accept that you will be judged insincere and do not be surprised when people largely stop responding to your emails. I am done myself, unless you alter your approach. Birgitte SB (who really hates when people over-snip) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] If I could talk to the wiki folks...
Ziko van Dijk, 29/12/2012 17:36: I'm confident to see soon a Wikimedia Medicine as the model for some other thematic organizations, and I am curious how it will evolve. Maybe I will never understand what is a "foundation" in the US. In the Netherlands or Germany, we distinguish between an association (with members) and a foundation (without members, only the board members). In the US, it seems, both can be a "foundation" and decide wether to allow members or not. Members are not really the point, those are things which can vary a lot across countries and different kinds of foundations in the same country. In extremely general terms, I think it can be safely said that a foundation exists for the sole purpose of preserving its assets for a scope, while an association is a group of persons with some common scope. [Of course I know nothing on the topic and terms/forms can be stretched so much... but no less than Machiavelli (1511) supports this according to my etymological dictionary, and he's even more esteemed in USA than Italy/continental Europe. ;-)] See e.g. the WMF whose sole scope is preserving and increasing the value of the trademarks and whose board is self-appointed and self-perpetuating. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] If I could talk to the wiki folks...
> > > Med is a very common abbreviation for Medicine. And what we at Wiki Med are working on is different than the Wikimedia Foundation. I doubt any more confusion than usual will occur. Am looking into what it would take to change it back to Wiki Medicine. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
> The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the April fundraiser being discussed? > No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern > for three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what > internal projects will be supported. I didn't mean to suggest that anyone be placed in a holding pattern, or otherwise interrupted. I thought I made it clear that I wanted the Fellowship Program to continue at least until reasonable community consultation could take place. > WMF in terms of compensation. It's below some companies that are > similar to us Wikimedia is above most non-profits that do tech work Could we please have some examples? I've been trying to identify any Bay Area tech non-profit or for-profit companies which tend to pay less than the Foundation, and from the extent of public information, I'm having trouble finding any, let alone any possible evidence of "most". Have any donor surveys asked donors whether they would prefer that the Foundation pay salaries competitive with local software development firms? I want to continue to encourage the use of measured data as opposed to opinion, assumption, and anecdotes. I have reason to believe from a small informal survey that the majority of donors would prefer that Wikimedia *meet or exceed* the prevailing pay for the same labor. I would also love to know how much of a reserve or endowment donors would prefer that we raise. I'm completely convinced that donors, the community, and everyone else who interacts with it in any way would prefer a lot more resources for the Education Program. Have any of these questions ever been included in a donor survey? The number of community members who found the "Narrowing focus" proposal in time to express a strong opinion on maintaining the Fellowship Program may be less than two dozen, but I can only find a single community member who spoke in support of eliminating it. I've looked at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus and the mailing lists. Can anyone find a second community member who agreed with eliminating the Fellowship Program? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
