Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[Amir Ladsgroup]

Thanks Patricio for the detailed answer which fully eliminated my concerns.
One thing that bothers me all the time is the very late answer from the
board. I'm pretty sure so many comments about Sue wouldn't be said if you
sent this response earlier. We've been through this that these statements
needs to be checked by the board, legal, probably comms, etc. and I
understand it's time consuming but this is another case of a publicity
crisis that could've been avoided by a faster response.

Do you have any plans to improve this?
Best

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 6:40 AM Kat Walsh  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > Patricio Lorente wrote:
> >>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
> >>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
> >>this time.
> >
> > Thank you for this e-mail.
> >
> >>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This
> is
> >>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
> >>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
> >>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
> >>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
> >>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full
> calendar
> >>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.
> >
> > This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?
> >
> >>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
> >>transition period: $165,000.
> >
> > This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
> > realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in the
> > Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course, but
> > this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at
> least
> > a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
> > notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.
> >
> >>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
> >>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
> >>compensation from it.
> >
> > I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the Wikimedia
> > Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.
>
> I left the board in the middle of this process, so I was present for
> part of the discussions around what would happen but not all of it,
> and my understanding may be out of date.
>
> The understanding I left with is that the Special Advisor role would
> be created and would be paid regardless of whether she was actually
> being consulted--so that the outgoing ED would continue to reserve
> time to be available, and the new ED would not have a financial
> incentive to end the relationship early. However, this doesn't
> guarantee that the relationship would continue to any significant
> degree, only that the consulting time was already reserved and paid
> for.
>
> -Kat
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Pine W]

Thanks Pete. I also think that Risker and I have different expectations for
financial disclosure and transparency. My view is influenced by my
experiences with Washington Stare government as well as my experience with
WMF grantmaking, where transparency is prioritized over privacy. Among
other benefits, this approach prevents exactly the kind of surprises that
we are discussing in this thread.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[Kat Walsh]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Patricio Lorente wrote:
>>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
>>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
>>this time.
>
> Thank you for this e-mail.
>
>>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
>>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
>>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
>>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
>>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
>>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full calendar
>>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.
>
> This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?
>
>>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
>>transition period: $165,000.
>
> This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
> realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in the
> Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course, but
> this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at least
> a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
> notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.
>
>>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
>>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
>>compensation from it.
>
> I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the Wikimedia
> Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.

I left the board in the middle of this process, so I was present for
part of the discussions around what would happen but not all of it,
and my understanding may be out of date.

The understanding I left with is that the Special Advisor role would
be created and would be paid regardless of whether she was actually
being consulted--so that the outgoing ED would continue to reserve
time to be available, and the new ED would not have a financial
incentive to end the relationship early. However, this doesn't
guarantee that the relationship would continue to any significant
degree, only that the consulting time was already reserved and paid
for.

-Kat

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[MZMcBride]

Patricio Lorente wrote:
>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
>this time.

Thank you for this e-mail.

>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
>reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
>response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
>cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
>July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
>compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full calendar
>year in which the fiscal year begins or ends.

This parenthetical confused me. Six months from July 2014 to June 2015?

>(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
>transition period: $165,000.

This is the key piece that I think most people didn't understand or
realize. Was this information published anywhere previously (e.g., in the
Board minutes)? I wouldn't expect to see an exact amount, of course, but
this is a pretty substantial amount of donor money, so I'd expect at least
a "we approved a retention bonus for special advisor Sue Gardner"-type
notice somewhere, typically on wikimediafoundation.org.

>Sue’s special advisor status with the Foundation ended on May 31, 2016,
>and she is no longer on contract with the Foundation or receiving any
>compensation from it.

I can't help but think about the tempestuous past year that the Wikimedia
Foundation has had, including issues with Sue's immediate successor.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[James Heilman]

Agree this is much clearer than the prior answer. Thank you

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown and effort to provide detailed
> responses to the various questions that have been asked here, and
> elsewhere.
> No-doubt there will be follow-up questions or requests for clarification,
> but I just wanted to say thanks to the team of people who evidently put
> time into preparing this public response.
>
> -Liam
>
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2016, Patricio Lorente 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
> > provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
> > this time. We understand the confusion related to this recent 990, given
> > the period it covers, and the aggregate amounts it reports. Below you’ll
> > find additional information about the nature of our contract with Sue,
> the
> > timeframe, and her work and compensation. I expect this will help resolve
> > this conversation. As Chair, I am completely comfortable with all terms.
> > Sue was a great ED and brought real value in exchange for her
> compensation.
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Background
> >
> > In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
> > staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid
> position.
> > We should have been more clear on this point. It is understandable that
> > people wonder why Sue was not listed on the page of staff and
> contractors.
> > However, everyone listed on the staff and contractors page report up to
> the
> > ED. Sue did not report to the ED; she was accountable to the board chair.
> > That's why she was not on that page.
> >
> > On the issue of compensation: We handled Sue's compensation the same way
> we
> > do with other individuals: it is disclosed in the 990 as appropriate, and
> > not elsewhere. That's our normal practice. This is true for a variety of
> > reasons, including the fact that the results are certified through our
> > external auditors. Other reasons include that it is a transparent
> > mechanism, consistent with other large charitable organizations, and a
> > matter of permanent, public record. The Foundation also wouldn’t normally
> > announce the salary or contract compensation at the time of bringing
> > someone on; that includes special advisors.
> >
> > We also don’t usually share the specific details of people’s compensation
> > beyond what is published in the 990. However, the 990 can be confusing,
> > especially when compensation levels change mid-year, and so in this case
> we
> > (including Sue) are happy to clarify the specifics.
> >
> > Timeframe
> >
> > One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This
> is
> > reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
> > response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
> > cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
> > July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
> > compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full
> calendar
> > year in which the fiscal year begins or ends. So all the executive
> > compensation reported is for twelve months, from January - December 2014,
> > even though some of it it falls outside the fiscal year reporting (July
> 1,
> > 2014 - June 30, 2015).
> >
> > Since Sue was on payroll during the 2014 calendar year, this means that
> the
> > 990 contains her total compensation for the whole year, includes
> Executive
> > Director salary, bonus, and special advisor work, at differing levels
> > throughout that period.
> >
> > Total compensation
> >
> > The total compensation ($301,341) reported in the 2014 990 form is broken
> > into three areas:
> >
> > (1) Compensation for her role as Executive Director during the 2014
> > calendar year (January 1 - May 31 2014): $107,174
> >
> > This number is Sue’s regular compensation as full-time Executive
> Director,
> > before the appointment of the new ED. This is for the 2014 calendar year
> > period of January 1 - May 31, 2014. It does not include compensation for
> > any of her efforts following May 31, 2014.
> >
> > (2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
> > transition period: $165,000.
> >
> > Sue informed us of her intent to step down in March of 2013, but agreed
> to
> > stay on until a new ED was identified. In August 2013, the Board of
> > Trustees approved a one-time retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost
> > opportunities and for her willingness to remain with the Foundation
> during
> > an important transitional period. Sue continued to serve as Executive
> > Director for more than a year after announcing her resignation, even
> though
> > she could have sought opportunities elsewhere. In addition to her other
> ED
> > responsibilities during this time, she led the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Pete Forsyth]

Risker, perhaps you missed this part of Patricio's message; I'm pretty
sure this is what Pine was referring to:

> In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position.
We should have been more clear on this point.

Speaking for myself, along with Patricio, I do appreciate Sue's
willingness to disclose information, presumably in the interest of
resolving this matter. I am accustomed to Sue acting in the best
interest of the Wikimedia movement, but we shouldn't take it for
granted; this would all be a much bigger fiasco without that bit of
information.

I do think it helps a great deal to know that, but it doesn't dismiss
all the important questions. Many of us (who are used to the term
"advisor" being used only for the unpaid advisory board) were
surprised to learn there was compensation at all. In addition, I'm not
so happy to hear from James Heilman (in a Facebook comment) that he
was unaware of Sue's availability as a paid advisor during his tenure
as a Trustee.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On 6/7/16, Risker  wrote:
> I think Patricio would be surprised that you have interpreted his email
> that way, Pine. There's nothing in his email that says anything about
> proactive disclosure of the salaries of individual employees or
> contractors. It would probably be appropriate to extend your thanks to Sue,
> who has agreed to the posting of her own direct salary for the 2015-16
> fiscal year, despite the fact that it would not come close to the Form 990
> reporting threshold.
>
> Risker
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 20:42, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and
>> I did not see it.
>>
>> The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and
>> delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief
>> that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the
>> situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive
>> disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should
>> consider
>> more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being
>> blindsided.
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Risker]

I think Patricio would be surprised that you have interpreted his email
that way, Pine. There's nothing in his email that says anything about
proactive disclosure of the salaries of individual employees or
contractors. It would probably be appropriate to extend your thanks to Sue,
who has agreed to the posting of her own direct salary for the 2015-16
fiscal year, despite the fact that it would not come close to the Form 990
reporting threshold.

Risker

On 7 June 2016 at 20:42, Pine W  wrote:

> Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and
> I did not see it.
>
> The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and
> delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief
> that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the
> situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive
> disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should consider
> more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being
> blindsided.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Pine W]

Thank you for pointing that out, Risker. The emails indeed cross paths and
I did not see it.

The point remains: the standard is proactive disclosure, not minimum and
delayed disclosure. The latter happened, and it is not ok. It is a relief
that Sue was not getting $300k per year as an advisor, which helps the
situation considerably. Regardless, there should have been proactive
disclosure. I am glad that Patricio agrees. I think that we should consider
more robust accounting procedures in the future. I do not appreciate being
blindsided.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[Liam Wyatt]

Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown and effort to provide detailed
responses to the various questions that have been asked here, and
elsewhere.
No-doubt there will be follow-up questions or requests for clarification,
but I just wanted to say thanks to the team of people who evidently put
time into preparing this public response.

-Liam

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016, Patricio Lorente 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
> provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
> this time. We understand the confusion related to this recent 990, given
> the period it covers, and the aggregate amounts it reports. Below you’ll
> find additional information about the nature of our contract with Sue, the
> timeframe, and her work and compensation. I expect this will help resolve
> this conversation. As Chair, I am completely comfortable with all terms.
> Sue was a great ED and brought real value in exchange for her compensation.
>
> ==
>
> Background
>
> In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
> staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position.
> We should have been more clear on this point. It is understandable that
> people wonder why Sue was not listed on the page of staff and contractors.
> However, everyone listed on the staff and contractors page report up to the
> ED. Sue did not report to the ED; she was accountable to the board chair.
> That's why she was not on that page.
>
> On the issue of compensation: We handled Sue's compensation the same way we
> do with other individuals: it is disclosed in the 990 as appropriate, and
> not elsewhere. That's our normal practice. This is true for a variety of
> reasons, including the fact that the results are certified through our
> external auditors. Other reasons include that it is a transparent
> mechanism, consistent with other large charitable organizations, and a
> matter of permanent, public record. The Foundation also wouldn’t normally
> announce the salary or contract compensation at the time of bringing
> someone on; that includes special advisors.
>
> We also don’t usually share the specific details of people’s compensation
> beyond what is published in the 990. However, the 990 can be confusing,
> especially when compensation levels change mid-year, and so in this case we
> (including Sue) are happy to clarify the specifics.
>
> Timeframe
>
> One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
> reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
> response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
> cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
> July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
> compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full calendar
> year in which the fiscal year begins or ends. So all the executive
> compensation reported is for twelve months, from January - December 2014,
> even though some of it it falls outside the fiscal year reporting (July 1,
> 2014 - June 30, 2015).
>
> Since Sue was on payroll during the 2014 calendar year, this means that the
> 990 contains her total compensation for the whole year, includes Executive
> Director salary, bonus, and special advisor work, at differing levels
> throughout that period.
>
> Total compensation
>
> The total compensation ($301,341) reported in the 2014 990 form is broken
> into three areas:
>
> (1) Compensation for her role as Executive Director during the 2014
> calendar year (January 1 - May 31 2014): $107,174
>
> This number is Sue’s regular compensation as full-time Executive Director,
> before the appointment of the new ED. This is for the 2014 calendar year
> period of January 1 - May 31, 2014. It does not include compensation for
> any of her efforts following May 31, 2014.
>
> (2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
> transition period: $165,000.
>
> Sue informed us of her intent to step down in March of 2013, but agreed to
> stay on until a new ED was identified. In August 2013, the Board of
> Trustees approved a one-time retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost
> opportunities and for her willingness to remain with the Foundation during
> an important transitional period. Sue continued to serve as Executive
> Director for more than a year after announcing her resignation, even though
> she could have sought opportunities elsewhere. In addition to her other ED
> responsibilities during this time, she led the creation of a transition
> plan for the new Executive Director and supported the search process.
>
> The Board discussed this agreement with Sue over a few months before
> reaching the agreement in August. This is a standard practice used to
> compensate individuals for lost opportunities and ensure organizational
> stability during transitional 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Pine W]

I consider the systematic omission of proactive disclosure of this
expenditure of at least $300,000 in donor funds to be financial misconduct
and a breach of trust. It's profoundly contrary to the values that this
organization claims to uphold.

Pine

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point
> > us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director
> role,
> > was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of
> > nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan
> were
> > tapped for these funds?
> >
>
> The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the
> 2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.
>
> I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting
> expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal
> assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means
> something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional
> areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)
>
> [1]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan.pdf
> under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area"
> [2]
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan.pdf
> under "Staffing by Functional Area"
>
>
>
>
> >
> > A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for
> far
> > smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed
> > good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used
> to
> > benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they
> give
> > to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and
> > if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
> >
> > My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special
> Advisor
> > was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's
> > contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
> >
> > As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff
> > and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are
> included
> > on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have
> > excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she
> > continued to be paid by WMF.
> >
> > I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting
> > appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have
> been
> > intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed
> to
> > avoid transparency and accountability.
> >
>
> Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a
> case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".
>
> -- brion
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Clarifications on 2014 Form 990

[Patricio Lorente]

Hi all,

We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
this time. We understand the confusion related to this recent 990, given
the period it covers, and the aggregate amounts it reports. Below you’ll
find additional information about the nature of our contract with Sue, the
timeframe, and her work and compensation. I expect this will help resolve
this conversation. As Chair, I am completely comfortable with all terms.
Sue was a great ED and brought real value in exchange for her compensation.

==

Background

In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was
staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position.
We should have been more clear on this point. It is understandable that
people wonder why Sue was not listed on the page of staff and contractors.
However, everyone listed on the staff and contractors page report up to the
ED. Sue did not report to the ED; she was accountable to the board chair.
That's why she was not on that page.

On the issue of compensation: We handled Sue's compensation the same way we
do with other individuals: it is disclosed in the 990 as appropriate, and
not elsewhere. That's our normal practice. This is true for a variety of
reasons, including the fact that the results are certified through our
external auditors. Other reasons include that it is a transparent
mechanism, consistent with other large charitable organizations, and a
matter of permanent, public record. The Foundation also wouldn’t normally
announce the salary or contract compensation at the time of bringing
someone on; that includes special advisors.

We also don’t usually share the specific details of people’s compensation
beyond what is published in the 990. However, the 990 can be confusing,
especially when compensation levels change mid-year, and so in this case we
(including Sue) are happy to clarify the specifics.

Timeframe

One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
reasonable, this confused even some of us involved in preparing this
response. Although the majority of activities reported on the Form 990
cover the Foundation’s fiscal year (specifically, the six months between
July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015), the IRS requires that details about
compensation for certain highly-paid individuals are for the full calendar
year in which the fiscal year begins or ends. So all the executive
compensation reported is for twelve months, from January - December 2014,
even though some of it it falls outside the fiscal year reporting (July 1,
2014 - June 30, 2015).

Since Sue was on payroll during the 2014 calendar year, this means that the
990 contains her total compensation for the whole year, includes Executive
Director salary, bonus, and special advisor work, at differing levels
throughout that period.

Total compensation

The total compensation ($301,341) reported in the 2014 990 form is broken
into three areas:

(1) Compensation for her role as Executive Director during the 2014
calendar year (January 1 - May 31 2014): $107,174

This number is Sue’s regular compensation as full-time Executive Director,
before the appointment of the new ED. This is for the 2014 calendar year
period of January 1 - May 31, 2014. It does not include compensation for
any of her efforts following May 31, 2014.

(2) Retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost opportunities during the
transition period: $165,000.

Sue informed us of her intent to step down in March of 2013, but agreed to
stay on until a new ED was identified. In August 2013, the Board of
Trustees approved a one-time retention bonus to compensate Sue for lost
opportunities and for her willingness to remain with the Foundation during
an important transitional period. Sue continued to serve as Executive
Director for more than a year after announcing her resignation, even though
she could have sought opportunities elsewhere. In addition to her other ED
responsibilities during this time, she led the creation of a transition
plan for the new Executive Director and supported the search process.

The Board discussed this agreement with Sue over a few months before
reaching the agreement in August. This is a standard practice used to
compensate individuals for lost opportunities and ensure organizational
stability during transitional periods. The Board and Sue agreed she would
receive this retention bonus after the new ED had started.

(3) Compensation as Special Advisor between June 1, 2014 - December 31,
2014: $29,167.

Sue agreed to serve as Special Advisor to the Foundation for a term of one
year after the new ED started, from June 1, 2014 - May 31, 2015. The Board
felt that it was important to have Sue’s knowledge and experience at hand
to support the Foundation as it went through an executive transition. In
general, it is good practice to make sure that there is the ability to draw
on the expertise of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Brion Vibber]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've been following this discussion with some interest. Can someone point
> us to where Sue's compensation, after she left the Executive Director role,
> was budgeted in the WMF annual plans? That money cannot have come out of
> nowhere. Which line item, or line items, in the 2015-2016 Annual Plan were
> tapped for these funds?
>

The 2015-2016 Annual Plan[1] lists 2 FTEs under 'Executive', whereas the
2015-2014 plan[2] listed 1.

I'm not sure if this represents the second full-time equivalent contracting
expense for the former-ED advisor role being added, or if the ED's personal
assistant role got moved in to that 'department', or if that means
something else, but it struck me as odd. (Unlike the other functional
areas, there is no breakdown given by type.)

[1]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/43/WMF2015-16AnnualPlan.pdf
under "Appending B", "Staffing by Functional Area"
[2]
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/e0/2014-15_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan.pdf
under "Staffing by Functional Area"




>
> A second question. WMF demands exhaustive reporting from affiliates for far
> smaller amounts of money than Sue received. I am hoping that WMF followed
> good practice by having a careful accounting of how Sue's time was used to
> benefit WMF in a manner consistent with the intent of donors when they give
> to WMF. Is there an accounting for Sue's use of time as a contractor, and
> if so, in what level of detail do those records exist?
>
> My impression from Jan-Bart's emails was that Sue's role as Special Advisor
> was a volunteer role, similar to Advisory Board members. Why was Sue's
> contractor status not disclosed in those emails?
>
> As Lodewijk said, why was Sue not shown on the public list of paid staff
> and contractors? Interns who earn far less than $300k per year are included
> on that list; I cannot imagine what good reason there would be to have
> excluded Sue from the list unless there was an intent to hide that she
> continued to be paid by WMF.
>
> I am greatly troubled by this situation. It was opaque, the accounting
> appears to be lax, and the more I look at it the more it seems to have been
> intentionally concealed in a manner that was inappropriate and designed to
> avoid transparency and accountability.
>

Yes, it's worrying whether it's deliberate obfuscation or whether it's a
case of "left hand not knowing what the right is doing".

-- brion
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Adrian Raddatz]

Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
differences that Risker brings up?

And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the type
of harassment that is referenced 99% of the time here - block or lock
evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
stop."

Adrian Raddatz

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
> validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
> lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
> they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
> blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
> Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
> who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
> harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
> a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
> interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
> aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
> not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
> much more visible concern.
>
> There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
> administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
> up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
> that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
> administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
> the objections of their community?
>
> I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
> global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
> and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
> very different.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work
> for
> > all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> > permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> > should be mandatory.
> >
> > Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> > functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> > for doing some types of work.
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wiki Project Med Foundation
> > WikiWomen's User Group
> > Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sydney,
> > >
> > > Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
> > making
> > > the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> > > after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> > > refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> > > helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required
> > annual
> > > training.
> > >
> > > I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> > > other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> > > ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who
> have
> > > demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will
> be
> > > required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping
> their
> > > admin permissions.
> > >
> > > My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> > > interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> > > *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it.
> Big
> > > carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training
> develops
> > a
> > > track record of success.
> > >
> > > I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> > > feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it
> helpful,
> > > and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> > > administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> > > before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6
> > or
> > > 12 months of the training being rolled out.
> > >
> > > Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the
> success
> > > of the training.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> > >> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Anders Wennersten]

I fully agree with Risker. I feel this discussion is only (mainly) 
looking at enwp. Harassment probably exist on all versions but the 
seriously of the issue look very differently.


Being the most active user and sysop on a smaller version (svwp) I do 
not recognize the issues being discussed. On our version we do not need 
any arbcom, we are getting very good to resolve all issues without, on a 
page where all are welcome to participate (and block of more then a day 
is not allowed of an productive contributor by just one admin, it must 
have been discussed first and reached consensus first) . And 
haressements are not more frequent than that is is possible to handle 
them individually (which we do and have a low tolerance level)


And besides from us being few that makes this issue easier to tackle, my 
opinion is that the key for us is the yearly confirmation of admin 
rights.  It is interesting to follow these over the years. First the 
reasons for non-support was if clear misuse, after a few years 
aggressive discussion style, but now it is being about the need to 
friendly and cooperative (but all OK to be tough on trolls, bad 
behaviour unserious editing)


perhaps instead of building up new rules etc, it could be worthwhile to 
study good working versions instead and learn from them?


Anders



Den 2016-06-07 kl. 21:18, skrev Risker:

Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
much more visible concern.

There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
the objections of their community?

I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
very different.

Risker/Anne

On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:


My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
should be mandatory.

Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
for doing some types of work.

Sydney





Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:


Hi Sydney,

Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding

making

the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required

annual

training.

I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
admin permissions.

My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
*want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops

a

track record of success.

I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
before on multiple 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Risker]

Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning.  There *might* be some
validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
blocks. Nobody was selecting them to handle large-scale harassment.
Indeed, I cannot think of a single administrator even on a large project
who was selected because of their ability or their interest in handling
harassment incidents.  There's pretty good evidence that it is not only not
a criterion seriously considered by communities, but that absent the
interest or willingness to carry out other tasks or demonstration of
aptitude for other areas of administrator work, an admin candidate would
not be selected by most communities, even large ones where harassment is a
much more visible concern.

There is also no basis for putting forward that mandatory training for any
administrator function would be useful on a global scale. How does one set
up a mandatory training program for carrying out page protection, given
that every large project has a different policy?  What happens if an
administrator doesn't "pass" a mandatory program? Are they desysopped, over
the objections of their community?

I'll point out in passing that there is not even consideration of a formal
global checkuser training program - again, the local policies vary widely,
and the types of issues addressed by checkusers on different projects is
very different.

Risker/Anne

On 7 June 2016 at 15:01, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
> all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> should be mandatory.
>
> Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> for doing some types of work.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Sydney,
> >
> > Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
> making
> > the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> > after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> > refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> > helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required
> annual
> > training.
> >
> > I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> > other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> > ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
> > demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
> > required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
> > admin permissions.
> >
> > My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> > interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> > *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
> > carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops
> a
> > track record of success.
> >
> > I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> > feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
> > and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> > administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> > before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6
> or
> > 12 months of the training being rolled out.
> >
> > Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
> > of the training.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> >> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
> >>
> >> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
> >> discussion.
> >>
> >> Sydney
> >>
> >> Sydney Poore
> >> User:FloNight
> >> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> >> WikiWomen's User Group
> >> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have created
> >>>
> >>>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
> >>> and would welcome feedback there.
> >>>
> >>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to
> our
> >>> experienced CheckUsers.
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>> ___
> >>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Pine W]

Hi Sydney,

I think that if individual communities create a consensus to mandate
training, or if arbitration committees issue that mandate on particular
wikis, that's completely fine and good. I'm hesitant to say that WMF should
wield a stick to mandate this kind of training for administrators on all
wikis until we know that the training is successful; otherwise WMF might
push out a set of training with high cost and low effectiveness that would
quickly be resented by the community and make any further development in
this area nearly impossible.

I could see mandatory training happening further down the road, and it
might be a very good thing, but there are important steps before we make
that decision.

Pine

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
> all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
> permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
> should be mandatory.
>
> Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
> functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
> for doing some types of work.
>
> Sydney
>
>
>
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Hi Sydney,
>>
>> Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding
>> making the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is
>> until after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested
>> and refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
>> helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
>> training.
>>
>> I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
>> other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
>> ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
>> demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
>> required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
>> admin permissions.
>>
>> My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
>> interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
>> *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
>> carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
>> track record of success.
>>
>> I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
>> feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
>> and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
>> administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
>> before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
>> 12 months of the training being rolled out.
>>
>> Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
>> of the training.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
>>> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>>>
>>> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> Sydney
>>>
>>> Sydney Poore
>>> User:FloNight
>>> Wiki Project Med Foundation
>>> WikiWomen's User Group
>>> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 I have created

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
 and would welcome feedback there.

 On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to
 our
 experienced CheckUsers.

 Pine
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 

>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Sydney Poore]

My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
should be mandatory.

Then people who are focusing on a particular type of administrative or
functionaries work can take more advanced courses that could be mandatory
for doing some types of work.

Sydney





Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wiki Project Med Foundation
WikiWomen's User Group
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore


On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Sydney,
>
> Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding making
> the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
> after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
> refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
> helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
> training.
>
> I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or
> other systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the
> ArbComs and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
> demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
> required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
> admin permissions.
>
> My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
> interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
> *want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
> carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
> track record of success.
>
> I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
> feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
> and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
> administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
> before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
> 12 months of the training being rolled out.
>
> Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success
> of the training.
>
> Pine
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
>> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>>
>> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
>> discussion.
>>
>> Sydney
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>> Wiki Project Med Foundation
>> WikiWomen's User Group
>> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> I have created
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
>>> and would welcome feedback there.
>>>
>>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
>>> experienced CheckUsers.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] 72 hours with Rodin editathon in Mexico City

[Alex Wang]

Very exciting and inspiring! Thanks for sharing Ivan!

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Hasive N. Chowdhury <
nhas...@wikimedia.org.bd> wrote:

> Great to know Ivan. All the best for Wikimedia Mexico.
>
>
> Hasive
> WMBD
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Martínez  wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > This June, Wikimedia Mexico will run the editathon* 72 hours with Rodin*
> > a huge journey from June 9 to 12 at Museo Soumaya[1]. This time we're
> > trying to break our previous record (60 continuous hours), this time
> we're
> > trying to achieve an even greater marathon: more than 70 continuous hours
> > editing Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata and Wikisource. We are
> > celebrating the arrival to the museum of one of Auguste Rodin's
> > masterpieces: ''The Gates of Hell'', so, we will have a celebration about
> > art and free knowledge which will include talks, theater pieces, guided
> > tours, workshops and fun time activities as karaoke nights. You saw it at
> > Wikimania, Wikimedia Mexico volunteers love fun also :) The museum will
> be
> > open also to public during that 72 hours.
> >
> > The editathon will focus on Auguste Rodin works and the Museo Soumaya
> > collections, but beyond that we have higher goals like completing the
> full
> > list of museums in Mexico and at least 50 biographies on importan women
> in
> > art and feminism as part of our permanent and transversal Gender Gap
> > Reduction Strategy. In this list (in Spanish)[2] you can find more about
> > the event and the list of articles. As in other editathons at Museo
> > Soumaya[3], we are inviting all Wikimedia chapters and affiliates to join
> > this effort and support us translating articles to more languages. As you
> > can see in the list, this time we are doing a detailed logistic which
> > involves pairing Wikimedia Mexico volunteers with museum staff
> (researchers
> > and/or curators), aiming to increase experience of the museum’s staff on
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > *72 hours with Rodin* will pursuit to set a new record and it’s an event
> > prepared since January, escalating in intensity since two months ago with
> > the coordination by Andrés Cruz y Corro (User:Andycyca), head of
> volunteers
> > in Wikimania 2015. As a matter of fact, 60% of the Wikimania 2015 Yellow
> > Army will be present on the event.
> >
> > We will love to have support from Wikimedia community in the translation
> > of the articles produced in the editathon to more languages of the globe.
> > Please don’t hesitate if you want to join the editathon!
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Iván Martínez
> > President
> > Wikimedia Mexico
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproyecto:Museo_Soumaya/Editat%C3%B3n_72_Horas_con_Rodin
> > [2]
> >
> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproyecto:Museo_Soumaya/Editat%C3%B3n_72_Horas_con_Rodin/Art%C3%ADculos_a_editar
> > [3]
> >
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/11/05/50-hours-of-art-the-museo-soumaya-editathon/
> >
> >
> > // Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una
> > moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado.
> > // Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
> User: Hasive  |
> GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
> ​
> Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia <
> http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive>
> Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> Board Member | Wikimedia Bangladesh 
> fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
>  | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

[Pine W]

Hi Sydney,

Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding making
the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training is
helpful, then at that point we could consider making this a required annual
training.

I could foresee is that, on wikis that have arbitration committees or other
systematic ways of dealing with administrators who mess up, the ArbComs
and/or the community could say that those administrators who have
demonstrated weakness in areas that are addressed by the training will be
required to take or re-take the training as a condition of keeping their
admin permissions.

My hope is that the training will be of such good quality, and so
interesting and useful to administrators, that many administrators will
*want* to take the training or at least be curious enough to try it. Big
carrot, small stick. We can escalate from there if the training develops a
track record of success.

I would think of success as being measured in two ways: administrators'
feedback about the training shows a consensus that they found it helpful,
and communities report higher levels of satisfaction with their
administrators as shown in the difference between surveys that are done
before on multiple wikis (1) before the training starts and (2) after 6 or
12 months of the training being rolled out.

Comments welcome, including suggestions about how to measure the success of
the training.

Pine

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight suggested Annual Training during the
> Harassment Consultation, 2015.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Annual_training
>
> If you've not seen it, it is worth your time to read the talk page
> discussion.
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wiki Project Med Foundation
> WikiWomen's User Group
> Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sydney.e.poore
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> I have created
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Training_for_administrators
>> and would welcome feedback there.
>>
>> On the subject of block evasion, I have some ideas but would defer to our
>> experienced CheckUsers.
>>
>> Pine
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Greg,

Just to expand a little on what John is saying here, I find it a little odd
that the information to separate out the cost of actually making trademark
applications, and the cost of legal consultants, has not been separated
out.  I confess I'm not that familiar with the rules of Form 990, but in my
experience it would be most irregular to aggregate two expenses as
disparate as that in a general purpose financial statement.

I'm also concerned by the lateness of the filing.  While I'm aware that the
relevant authorities are pretty generous with giving extensions when asked,
filing stuff late is a habit worth kicking.  Otherwise you are very
dependent on the goodwill of whomever you're filing with to avoid
unnecessary penalties.

On a brighter note, I definitely appreciate the work that you're doing to
get this information for us, so thank you for that.

Cheers,
Craig

On 5 June 2016 at 13:09, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> On 5 Jun 2016 05:19, "Greg Varnum"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > John asked about filing and other fees paid by Jones Day, and if the fees
> were separate from consulting costs. Unfortunately, we don’t have an easy,
> quick way to divide the Jones Day expenses into registration fees and legal
> fees, but we can provide more information about where the costs came from.
> Each trademark application costs about $1,000–5,000 (sometimes more),
> including filing fees and attorney’s fees. The cost for each application
> depends on the country’s application fees, the country’s administrative
> hurdles, the breadth of protection we are seeking, whether we can reuse
> materials prepared for previous applications, and whether we encounter
> resistance from trademark offices or other trademark holders.
>
> Your response isnt clear, but it strongly implies the stated US$1.7M stated
> on page p.61 does include the fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government
> bodies around the world.  No surprise there.  But it is surprising that
> Jones Day doesnt provide detailed invoices that separate their own services
> from fees they have paid on the WMF's behalf.
>
> If the WMF doesnt know what the fees cost, the WMF does not know how much
> extra it paid for an external consultant to do the paperwork for them ... ?
>
> How much will it cost for someone to split the 1.7 M bill?
>
> Their relationship with WMF has come a long way since the 'pro bono' work
> that Jones Day did to recommend acquiring a trademark on a public domain
> logo (and somehow convincing many WMF staff that it was a brilliant idea).
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Request_for_consultation#Legal_representation
>
> > Finally, regarding John's question about non-program service investment
> in Europe (page 35), this represents our foreign currency bank accounts
> with JP Morgan in the UK. The purpose of this holding is to retain
> donations received in EUR, GBP, CAD and AUD in their original currency to
> minimize currency exchange risks.
>
> Do I understand correctly that the 5.2M was to meet minimum account opening
> deposit criteria for four accounts for the four currency.
>
> The money cant be withdrawn while these accounts are open? Is it being
> managed by an investment fund?  If so, which one, or what is the expected
> rate of return on this investment.  Did the WMF have an option for which
> fund was used, or was it stipulated by JP Morgan/ etc?
>
> --
> John
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

[geni]

On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> Not to put too fine a point on it... But are you saying that Sue remained
> the most highly paid contractor to the WMF, and at a significantly higher
> rate than when she was the actual ED, until FIVE DAYS ago? That is, well
> beyond any 'transition period' (and in fact longer than the employment of
> the person who replaced her)?


Its now been a full working day. Can we have a clarification on this point?

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,