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

[Chris Keating]

>
> Was the investment in pound sterling?
> The pound has been going down steadily over the last year.
> And now we have a steep drop due to Brexit.


Am not speaking from a position of particular knowledge on this, but the
way I read original the email was simply that income was held in some kind
of depsit account in the currency in which it was received - so GBP income
remained in GBP until there was a need to spend GBP. WMF does after all
have significant expenditures in other currencies than dollars (e.g. grants
and salaries of overseas staff).

Regards,

Chris
___
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

[rupert THURNER]

This site
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Executive_Officer_(CEO)/Salary
States that a US American CEO salary would be from 70k up to 420k a year,
for Ngo 83k less. You are asking where and why the wmf executive director
is in this range Lodewijk?

Rupert
On May 31, 2016 10:21, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
> acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
> you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
> you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions, I
> understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably
> more relevant.
>
> Please don't retreat in silence again.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
>
> > Thanks Greg for the responses.
> >
> > As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
> > appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
> > duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near
> full
> > time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
> > People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
> > that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
> >
> > Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this
> simply
> > matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something
> else
> > behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
> >
> > It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
> >
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :
> >
> >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Greetings,
> >> >
> >> > Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
> >> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
> >> >
> >> > Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services
> (totalling
> >> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
> >> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
> >> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
> >> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our
> global
> >> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
> >> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
> >> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal
> services
> >> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
> >> application filing fees.
> >> >
> >> > These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and
> >> revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks
> and
> >> projects, including countries where readership was growing through
> targeted
> >> programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership).
> >> Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease
> in
> >> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial
> foundation
> >> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
> >> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the
> maturity
> >> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
> >> forms of infringement or misuse.
> >>
> >> Hi Gregory,
> >> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
> >> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
> >> around the world?
> >> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
> >> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
> >> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
> >> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
> >> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
> >>
> >> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
> >> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
> >> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
> >> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
> >> have a little more info about this line item?
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Vandenberg
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:09 AM, 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?

I havent seen any clarification regarding this.

Was the investment in pound sterling?
The pound has been going down steadily over the last year.
And now we have a steep drop due to Brexit.

Is the investment being used by JP Morgan to support fossil fuel projects?

--
John Vandenberg

___
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] [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] [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, 

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] [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, 

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

[Pine W]

With regard to Sue, adding to the list of concerns about the sheer amount
of money is that she wasn't the executive anymore, so why was she being
paid like one?

Pine

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> Thanks Gnangarra.
>
> I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy
> consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of
> framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting
> that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful
> strategic goals.
>
> This piece in no way explains why the WMF is in the habit of paying
> its CEO twice what the UK Government pays its Prime Minister. I doubt
> anyone believes that the WMF job is twice as stressful, delivers twice
> the value, is twice as accountable or twice as hard.
>
> If we were to bring some hard numbers into the WMF board to
> /benchmark/ the CEO salary decision making process, compare the WMF
> CEO package to that of charities of the same size to the WMF. Here's a
> few facts from a survey of UK charities:[1]
> * In the 100 highest paying charities, CEOs are paid a median of $235,000.
> * Cancer Research UK have an income of $770m and pay its CEO, Sir
> Harpal Kumar, $330,000.
> * Barnardo's have an income of $400m and pay Peter Brook a salary of
> $215,000.
> * Scope has over 3,500 employees, an income of $140m, and pay Richard
> Hawkes a salary of $200,000.
>
> Probably the best comparative example from this handful is Cancer
> Research UK (CRUK) as they are both in the technology and
> science/academic sector and pay an almost identical CEO salary as the
> WMF does. Their strategic goal is to find new cures for cancer
> applying leading edge science, and run a massive programme of public
> communication and education (including improving Wikipedia articles,
> which I was lucky enough to help out with!). Their direct spend on
> scientific research projects is over $165m,[2] more than a magnitude
> larger than the WMF's spend on software development and with far, far
> greater technical and ethical challenges.
>
> The reason that the WMF rewards its CEO at the same prestigious level
> as CRUK, is because they are trapped in the Silicon Valley bubble and
> fixed in the belief that they must pay top executive salaries
> competing with commercial Silicon Valley IT companies, rather than
> comparing themselves to charities or educational institutions. If the
> WMF board really want to shake up their strategy, they should start
> planning to have some development and management teams in cities other
> than San Francisco, if only to unlock themselves from their current
> unrealistic group-think, and start behaving like a leading edge
> professional educational charity, rather than a for-profit "breaking
> everything is good" Silicon Valley dot com.
>
> Links:
> 1.
> http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-highest-earners/management/article/1335060
> 2.
> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-organisation/annual-report-and-accounts/annual-review
>
> Fae
>
> On 6 June 2016 at 04:10, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > this is worth reading
> >
> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-nonprofits-not-pay-for-overhead-is-preventing-them-fro
> >
> > On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum  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)?
> >>
> >> Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month
> >> golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few
> >> days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an
> >> eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a
> >> super-duper bonus for Sue.
> >>
> >> However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here,
> >> move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been
> >> a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals
> >> and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to
> >> help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its
> >> highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much
> >> more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all
> >> its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this
> >> were a court for the Borgia family.
> >>
> >> I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and
> >> possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently
> >> pays it's head of 

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

[Fæ]

Thanks Gnangarra.

I'm familiar with Bridgespan, and when I worked as a strategy
consultant, I used the "starvation cycle" myself. It's a way of
framing the need for improvement differently from simply insisting
that 5% is saved each year, and instead using more meaningful
strategic goals.

This piece in no way explains why the WMF is in the habit of paying
its CEO twice what the UK Government pays its Prime Minister. I doubt
anyone believes that the WMF job is twice as stressful, delivers twice
the value, is twice as accountable or twice as hard.

If we were to bring some hard numbers into the WMF board to
/benchmark/ the CEO salary decision making process, compare the WMF
CEO package to that of charities of the same size to the WMF. Here's a
few facts from a survey of UK charities:[1]
* In the 100 highest paying charities, CEOs are paid a median of $235,000.
* Cancer Research UK have an income of $770m and pay its CEO, Sir
Harpal Kumar, $330,000.
* Barnardo's have an income of $400m and pay Peter Brook a salary of $215,000.
* Scope has over 3,500 employees, an income of $140m, and pay Richard
Hawkes a salary of $200,000.

Probably the best comparative example from this handful is Cancer
Research UK (CRUK) as they are both in the technology and
science/academic sector and pay an almost identical CEO salary as the
WMF does. Their strategic goal is to find new cures for cancer
applying leading edge science, and run a massive programme of public
communication and education (including improving Wikipedia articles,
which I was lucky enough to help out with!). Their direct spend on
scientific research projects is over $165m,[2] more than a magnitude
larger than the WMF's spend on software development and with far, far
greater technical and ethical challenges.

The reason that the WMF rewards its CEO at the same prestigious level
as CRUK, is because they are trapped in the Silicon Valley bubble and
fixed in the belief that they must pay top executive salaries
competing with commercial Silicon Valley IT companies, rather than
comparing themselves to charities or educational institutions. If the
WMF board really want to shake up their strategy, they should start
planning to have some development and management teams in cities other
than San Francisco, if only to unlock themselves from their current
unrealistic group-think, and start behaving like a leading edge
professional educational charity, rather than a for-profit "breaking
everything is good" Silicon Valley dot com.

Links:
1. 
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-highest-earners/management/article/1335060
2. 
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-organisation/annual-report-and-accounts/annual-review

Fae

On 6 June 2016 at 04:10, Gnangarra  wrote:
> this is worth reading
> http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-nonprofits-not-pay-for-overhead-is-preventing-them-fro
>
> On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum  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)?
>>
>> Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month
>> golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few
>> days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an
>> eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a
>> super-duper bonus for Sue.
>>
>> However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here,
>> move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been
>> a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals
>> and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to
>> help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its
>> highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much
>> more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all
>> its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this
>> were a court for the Borgia family.
>>
>> I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and
>> possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently
>> pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump
>> up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO
>> salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 

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

[Pine W]

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?

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.

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

[Gnangarra]

this is worth reading
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060455/future-of-philanthropy/demanding-that-nonprofits-not-pay-for-overhead-is-preventing-them-fro

On 5 June 2016 at 16:23, Fæ  wrote:

> On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum  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)?
>
> Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month
> golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few
> days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an
> eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a
> super-duper bonus for Sue.
>
> However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here,
> move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been
> a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals
> and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to
> help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its
> highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much
> more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all
> its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this
> were a court for the Borgia family.
>
> I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and
> possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently
> pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump
> up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO
> salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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, 

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

[Fæ]

On 5 June 2016 at 02:28, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum  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)?

Yes, this jumped out for me. I can understand paying out a 12 month
golden handshake on the way out, and paying a previous CEO for a few
days or weeks support during handover, but continuing to pay out at an
eye-watering equivalent salary of $300,000 per annum, was a
super-duper bonus for Sue.

However this is wrapped up in the normal "nothing to see here,
move-along" WMF PR speak, these lottery prize level payouts have been
a terrible, terrible deal in terms of the WMF delivering on its goals
and values. I certainly did not see Sue saying anything in public to
help avoid or repair any of the WMF board's strategic disasters in its
highly public annus horribilis. I doubt that in truth she did much
more in private, sorry, it's just not credible that the WMF has all
its strategic manipulators hidden away in private rooms as if this
were a court for the Borgia family.

I am utterly convinced that the WMF would do exactly as well, and
possibly even better, by paying a CEO slightly less than it currently
pays it's head of legal, certainly it would be rather stupid to pump
up the interim CEO's salary by three times to match the celebrity CEO
salaries that the WMF seems to have locked itself into.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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

[Tim Landscheidt]

(anonymous) wrote:

> […]

> This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity
> on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by
> Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive
> in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial transition period, and not to
> span 2 years. Is Patricio underselling Sue's involvement and was there a
> reason not to mention her as contractor? Am I somehow misunderstanding the
> compensation issue (i.e. was there a compensation for earlier years, or was
> it lowered)?

> […]

Is compensation for earlier years legal in the US?  In Ger-
many, since the clarification in the Mannesmann trial
(cf. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannesmann-Prozess), this
would not be possible.

Tim


___
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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

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, 

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

[Liam Wyatt]

On Sunday, 5 June 2016, Greg Varnum  wrote:

>  Sue served as a special advisor until May 31, 2016. Her pay included
> compensation for her extended role during the ED transition, and to match
> market rates for a role of this nature in organizations of similar size to
> the Wikimedia Foundation.


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)?

Interesting that Sue's contract ended on precisely the same day that
Lodewijk reiterated his questions about the nature of her contract?

- Liam


-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
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

[Lodewijk]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the eventual answer - I can understand that salaries/HR are a
complicated issue to comment on. I'm sorry I have to press on a bit more to
get an answer to my questions though.

I did note the answers Patricio gave to the Signpost
.
I did miss your answer on my question whether this was a full time, or near
a fulltime position (for the period concerning this salary) - quite an
important figure to estimate the meaning of 'a role of this nature in
organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation'.

The information available does suggest however that this was quite a steep
salary increase with a decrease in responsibilities. I'm not sure that is a
fair representation of the situation (I hope not), but that is what it
looks like to me, based on the available information.

Based on the compensation size, Sue played continued to play a very
significant role in the WMF. I'm glad that she remained available for that,
as the board apparently felt a need for it. However, despite that important
role and significant compensation, she was not mentioned on the list of
'staff and contractors' since she was replaced by Lila in June 2014

.

This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity
on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by
Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive
in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial transition period, and not to
span 2 years. Is Patricio underselling Sue's involvement and was there a
reason not to mention her as contractor? Am I somehow misunderstanding the
compensation issue (i.e. was there a compensation for earlier years, or was
it lowered)?

Maybe I'm missing something here - if so, please point it out! Thanks in
advance.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-06-05 0:18 GMT+02:00 Greg Varnum :

> Greetings,
>
> Apologies for our delay in this response. In addition to the holiday
> weekend, questions related to HR issues require extra care and verification
> on our part. But again, I do want to apologize for that process taking all
> week.
>
> Regarding Lodewijk's questions about Sue's special advisor role, including
> the timeline and how compensation was set, Sue served as a special advisor
> until May 31, 2016. Her pay included compensation for her extended role
> during the ED transition, and to match market rates for a role of this
> nature in organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation. Our
> Board Chair, Patricio Lorente, gave a response to the Signpost that
> provides more information[1].
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I hope that clarifies the remaining questions, and again, thank you for
> your questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere.
>
> -Gregory Varnum
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report
>
>
> > On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Greg Varnum  wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these
> additional questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States,
> and so we have not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate
> response.
> >
> > Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any
> additional questions.
> > Gregory Varnum
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >> On May 31, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Lodewijk 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
> >> acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or
> could
> >> you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer,
> if
> >> you think so? From 

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

[Greg Varnum]

Greetings,

Apologies for our delay in this response. In addition to the holiday weekend, 
questions related to HR issues require extra care and verification on our part. 
But again, I do want to apologize for that process taking all week.

Regarding Lodewijk's questions about Sue's special advisor role, including the 
timeline and how compensation was set, Sue served as a special advisor until 
May 31, 2016. Her pay included compensation for her extended role during the ED 
transition, and to match market rates for a role of this nature in 
organizations of similar size to the Wikimedia Foundation. Our Board Chair, 
Patricio Lorente, gave a response to the Signpost that provides more 
information[1].

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. 

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.

I hope that clarifies the remaining questions, and again, thank you for your 
questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere.

-Gregory Varnum
Wikimedia Foundation

1. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-05-28/Special_report


> On May 31, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Greg Varnum  wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these 
> additional questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States, 
> and so we have not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate 
> response.
> 
> Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any 
> additional questions.
> Gregory Varnum
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> 
>> On May 31, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Lodewijk  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
>> acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
>> you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
>> you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions, I
>> understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably
>> more relevant.
>> 
>> Please don't retreat in silence again.
>> 
>> Lodewijk
>> 
>> 2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
>> 
>>> Thanks Greg for the responses.
>>> 
>>> As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
>>> appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
>>> duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
>>> time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
>>> People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
>>> that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
>>> 
>>> Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
>>> matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
>>> behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
>>> 
>>> It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Lodewijk
>>> 
>>> 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :
>>> 
 On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum 
 wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
 Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
> 
> Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
 US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
 global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
 the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
 globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
 trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
 fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
 trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
 expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
 application filing fees.
> 
> These new trademark applications 

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

[Greg Varnum]

Greetings,

I just wanted to verify that we will be sending out answers to these additional 
questions. This past weekend was a holiday in the United States, and so we have 
not yet finished gathering the information to give accurate response.

Thank you for your patience, and please let me know if you have any additional 
questions.
Gregory Varnum
Wikimedia Foundation


> On May 31, 2016, at 4:16 AM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
> acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
> you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
> you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions, I
> understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably
> more relevant.
> 
> Please don't retreat in silence again.
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> 2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :
> 
>> Thanks Greg for the responses.
>> 
>> As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
>> appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
>> duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
>> time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
>> People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
>> that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
>> 
>> Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
>> matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
>> behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
>> 
>> It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
>> 
>> Lodewijk
>> 
>> 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum 
>>> wrote:
 Greetings,
 
 Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
 
 Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
>>> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
>>> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
>>> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
>>> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
>>> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
>>> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
>>> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
>>> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
>>> application filing fees.
 
 These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and
>>> revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and
>>> projects, including countries where readership was growing through targeted
>>> programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership).
>>> Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in
>>> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation
>>> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
>>> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity
>>> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
>>> forms of infringement or misuse.
>>> 
>>> Hi Gregory,
>>> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
>>> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
>>> around the world?
>>> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
>>> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
>>> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
>>> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
>>> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
>>> 
>>> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
>>> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
>>> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
>>> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
>>> have a little more info about this line item?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> John Vandenberg
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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: 

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

[Lodewijk]

Hi,

Unfortunately I haven't seen an answer to my questions. Could you please
acknowledge the receipt of the question if you're investigating? Or could
you just say it is a ridiculous question and that you refuse to answer, if
you think so? From the more elaborate answer on the Signpost questions, I
understand that the role continues to this day - which makes it probably
more relevant.

Please don't retreat in silence again.

Lodewijk

2016-05-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk :

> Thanks Greg for the responses.
>
> As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
> appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
> duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
> time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
> People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
> that the case? That would explain again a bit more.
>
> Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
> matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
> behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).
>
> It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :
>
>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum 
>> wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
>> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
>> >
>> > Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
>> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
>> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
>> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
>> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
>> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
>> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
>> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
>> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
>> application filing fees.
>> >
>> > These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and
>> revised descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and
>> projects, including countries where readership was growing through targeted
>> programs or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership).
>> Going forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in
>> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation
>> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
>> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity
>> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
>> forms of infringement or misuse.
>>
>> Hi Gregory,
>> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
>> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
>> around the world?
>> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
>> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
>> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
>> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
>> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
>>
>> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
>> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
>> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
>> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
>> have a little more info about this line item?
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Trillium Corsage]

19.05.2016, 17:25, "Chris Keating" :



> I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am
> surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had
> the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things
> themselves).

I was surprised how little WMF Legal do themselves. When a legal matter comes 
up, it seems what they do is find a law firm to pay to handle it. This happened 
in the case of Yank Berry, vocalist of 60s rock and roll group the Kingsmen 
(Louie Louie, etc.), who was astounded at the edits at his article by editors 
and administrators who very openly said on-wiki their intent was to portray him 
as a swindler and someone of low moral character. Mr. Berry credibly threatened 
a libel lawsuit and WMF Legal reacted by hiring some law firm to defend the 
editors.

What WMF Legal seems to do itself is modify and update the terms of service, 
give advise to the board, coordinate with WMF Trust and Safety in the banning 
of certain editors, and handle routine inquiries.

Trillium Corsage  

___
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

[Gnangarra]

but that does make sense in some ways as you'd expect the WMF legal be able
to review most written issues and deal with initial contact issues. As an
issue deepens then its only logical to have legal hand over the case to a
local practitioner who is licensed and has the depth of knowledge specific
to jurisdiction and speciality in which they operate something the WMF cant
do in 190 odd countries with countless more subnational entities.

On 30 May 2016 at 05:47, Trillium Corsage  wrote:

> 19.05.2016, 17:25, "Chris Keating" :
>
> 
>
> > I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I
> am
> > surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had
> > the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things
> > themselves).
>
> I was surprised how little WMF Legal do themselves. When a legal matter
> comes up, it seems what they do is find a law firm to pay to handle it.
> This happened in the case of Yank Berry, vocalist of 60s rock and roll
> group the Kingsmen (Louie Louie, etc.), who was astounded at the edits at
> his article by editors and administrators who very openly said on-wiki
> their intent was to portray him as a swindler and someone of low moral
> character. Mr. Berry credibly threatened a libel lawsuit and WMF Legal
> reacted by hiring some law firm to defend the editors.
>
> What WMF Legal seems to do itself is modify and update the terms of
> service, give advise to the board, coordinate with WMF Trust and Safety in
> the banning of certain editors, and handle routine inquiries.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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, 

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

[Lodewijk]

Thanks Greg for the responses.

As for the ED team, that answers part of my question. That Sue was
appointed as special advisor, was indeed public knowledge - but for what
duration was that? And was that a full time position (or anything near full
time), given that her compensation was as high as that of the ED herself?
People suggested that this included compensation for earlier years - was
that the case? That would explain again a bit more.

Also part of the question was why the raise was so steep - was this simply
matching the reality of the current job market, or was there something else
behind it (i.e. a bonus mechanism etc).

It would be great if you could clarify! Thanks!

Lodewijk

2016-05-25 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :

> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the
> Wikimedia Foundation's Form 990.
> >
> > Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling
> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our
> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen
> the trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks
> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global
> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015
> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different
> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services
> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark
> application filing fees.
> >
> > These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and revised
> descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and projects,
> including countries where readership was growing through targeted programs
> or distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership). Going
> forward, we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in
> trademark expenses year over year, now that we have this initial foundation
> is in place. This investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its
> communities by ensuring that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity
> and breadth of the Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain
> forms of infringement or misuse.
>
> Hi Gregory,
> Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
> filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
> around the world?
> If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
> Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
> You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
> terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
> would be nice to have a ball park figure.
>
> Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
> not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
> FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
> document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
> have a little more info about this line item?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia 
> Foundation's Form 990.
>
> Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling 
> US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our 
> global reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen the 
> trademark portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks 
> globally. In December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global 
> trademark filings, registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015 
> fiscal year we filed 1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different 
> trademarks in 100+ countries. A significant portion of the legal services 
> expenses in 2014-2015 went toward the mandatory government trademark 
> application filing fees.
>
> These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and revised 
> descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and projects, 
> including countries where readership was growing through targeted programs or 
> distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership). Going forward, 
> we anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in trademark expenses 
> year over year, now that we have this initial foundation is in place. This 
> investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its communities by ensuring 
> that our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity and breadth of the 
> Wikimedia movement, and protects us against certain forms of infringement or 
> misuse.

Hi Gregory,
Just to confirm, the stated US$1.7M stated on page p.61 includes
filing and other fees paid by Jones Day to relevant government bodies
around the world?
If so, any chance you can separate it into such fees paid *through*
Jones Day, vs the consultation fees of Jones Day.
You say it was a 'significant portion', but that is very vague
terminology, meaning very different things to different people; it
would be nice to have a ball park figure.

Also there was a USD ~5.2 M investment in Europe listed on p. 35 as
not being program services.  I didn't see any reference to it in the
FAQ; apologies if I missed it (It would be lovely if the source
document was posted on meta for easier navigation, etc.).  Could we
have a little more info about this line item?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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

[Richard Ames]

Gregory -

Thanks for the great response!

Richard.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia 
> Foundation's Form 990.



___
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

[Gregory Varnum]

Greetings,

Thank you to everyone for your questions and thoughts regarding the Wikimedia 
Foundation's Form 990.

Regarding Lodewijk's first question about the legal services (totalling 
US$1.7M) which were conducted by Jones Day (page 61 - Part VII): As our global 
reach has grown over time, we felt it was important to strengthen the trademark 
portfolio and solidify the protection of Wikimedia’s marks globally. In 
December 2013, we began working with Jones Day on our global trademark filings, 
registrations, and oppositions. During the 2014-2015 fiscal year we filed 
1,500+ new trademark applications for 35 different trademarks in 100+ 
countries. A significant portion of the legal services expenses in 2014-2015 
went toward the mandatory government trademark application filing fees. 

These new trademark applications contained expanded coverage and revised 
descriptions to ensure better protection of Wikimedia's marks and projects, 
including countries where readership was growing through targeted programs or 
distribution (such as Wikipedia Zero and mobile readership). Going forward, we 
anticipate (and are beginning to realize) a decrease in trademark expenses year 
over year, now that we have this initial foundation is in place. This 
investment immediately benefits Wikimedia and its communities by ensuring that 
our trademark portfolio reflects the maturity and breadth of the Wikimedia 
movement, and protects us against certain forms of infringement or misuse. 

Regarding Lodewijk's question about compensation to the 'ED team': The 
Foundation regularly discloses compensation information for Foundation 
leadership through our Form 990 filings. The 990 disclosure is an approach 
widely relied on by many different stakeholders: it is clear, transparent, 
consistent with other charitable entities, and a matter of public record. As 
such, we have chosen to use it as our primary means of disclosure. 

The Signpost recently also reached out with a similar question about the 
special advisor role. Here is the response Patricio shared:

"In May 2014, Jan-Bart announced that Sue would stay on as a special 
advisor,[1] which he confirmed again in June that year.[2]

The Board felt that Sue Gardner's knowledge and experience in our movement was 
valuable to support the Foundation as it went through that ED transition. In 
general, it is good practice to make sure that there is the ability to draw on 
the expertise of an experienced former executive - in this case, someone who 
grew the organization from a few people to more than 200.

We felt this was an important leadership change, perhaps one of the bigger ones 
in the Foundation’s history. This was a practical means of ensuring the 
handover went as smoothly as possible, and key institutional knowledge was 
preserved during an important period of transition."

As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundation spent $317,490 fighting 
"cybersquatters" that offered to donate the domain in dispute: We’re not sure 
where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a case that fits this 
description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer to donate their domains 
(especially if they are community members), and, to date, we have not spent 
anything approaching that much money on this type of case.

In answer to a question that was asked on Facebook:

"i'm curious about the investment of cash in corporate and municipal bonds. is 
there an investment policy? no sign of working capital needs and how to manage 
cash. no sign of endowment preparation."

Our investment policy, which is the guidance being used today, is available on 
Foundation wiki.[3] The investment policy for the endowment will be set by the 
Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board that we are forming right now. We are 
recruiting Advisory Board Trustees with significant investment expertise, from 
a diverse set of backgrounds. We announced the appointment of Annette 
Campbell-White last week as one of the founding board members. You can read 
more about her here.[4]

Again, thanks for your questions and feedback both on this list and elsewhere. 

-Gregory Varnum
Wikimedia Foundation

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071458.html
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072372.html
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Investment_Policy
[4] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/05/11/annette-campbell-white-endowment/

> On May 24, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> 
> I do hope btw that the unfortunate derailing doesn't mean the questions
> won't get an answer... I hoped those would be fairly obvious and easily
> clarified.
> 
> Lodewijk
> 
> 2016-05-20 0:52 GMT+02:00 Neil P. Quinn :
> 
>> I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't
>> realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll.
>> 
>> *Neil P. Quinn*
>> +1 (202) 656 3457
>> 

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

[Lodewijk]

I do hope btw that the unfortunate derailing doesn't mean the questions
won't get an answer... I hoped those would be fairly obvious and easily
clarified.

Lodewijk

2016-05-20 0:52 GMT+02:00 Neil P. Quinn :

> I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't
> realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll.
>
> *Neil P. Quinn*
> +1 (202) 656 3457
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jake Orlowitz 
> wrote:
>
> > Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least 5 phrases or
> > statements that David Emrany has said which made me cringe and wonder why
> > hasn't this been blocked/moderated already?
> >
> > Hostile, accusatory, and vulgar behavior degrades this entire forum
> (beyond
> > its already damaged capacity for inclusion of multiple voices).
> >
> > Please do something.
> >
> > Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi)
> > ___
> > 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

[Neil P. Quinn]

I totally second this. I apologize for engaging with him earlier; I didn't
realize at the time that he was such a pathetic troll.

*Neil P. Quinn*
+1 (202) 656 3457

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least 5 phrases or
> statements that David Emrany has said which made me cringe and wonder why
> hasn't this been blocked/moderated already?
>
> Hostile, accusatory, and vulgar behavior degrades this entire forum (beyond
> its already damaged capacity for inclusion of multiple voices).
>
> Please do something.
>
> Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi)
> ___
> 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

[Jake Orlowitz]

Seconding Lodewijk here. I can already count at least 5 phrases or
statements that David Emrany has said which made me cringe and wonder why
hasn't this been blocked/moderated already?

Hostile, accusatory, and vulgar behavior degrades this entire forum (beyond
its already damaged capacity for inclusion of multiple voices).

Please do something.

Jake Orlowitz (User:Ocaasi)
___
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

[David Emrany]

Thanks Lodewikj for your excellent catches.

1. The form-990 covers the period from 01-July 2014 to 30-June 2015.
During which the payments of US$ 300,000 to Sue Gardner
(SpecialAdvisor) was comparable to Lila Tretikov's (E.D.)

2. The largest contractor was "Jones Day" US$ 1,742,916 (almost 2
million) for legal services.

To illustrate the WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
(a not insubstantial amount). Somebody should report this to the IRS.

Dave

On 5/19/16, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Thanks Greg.
>
> I hope this is a good place also to ask a few questions about the form.
> When reading and comparing
> 
> with previous forms, two things jumped out as 'odd'. Probably there's a
> reasonable explanation, and I'm mostly curious for it. They were
> conveniently missed in the FAQ
> 
> .
>
> First, there's an overview of 'highest paid contractors' (for reading
> along: page 61) and the top one is a law firm for 1.7 Million USD. Which is
> quite a big sum of money. I'm confident this was necessary and unavoidable,
> but given the much lower amounts in previous years, what happened in
> 2014/2015 that made this necessary? I understood the NSA lawsuit was done
> pro bono, which is the most visible thing I remember from that year.
>
> Second, I noted a steep increase in the costs for the Executive Director
> (for readers: someone put together a helpful overview of top salaries here
> ). I
> generally don't like to dig into personal finances, but what really stood
> out, was the increase from 200k in 2013/2014 for the ED at that time, and
> 300k for the ED in 2014/2015. Now that is an increase of 50% - which is a
> lot and partially mitigated by the salary freeze the ED had the three years
> before. But what is even more striking, is the additional 300k that was
> paid to the outgoing ED, which means basically that the compensation to the
> 'ED team' was tripled from 200k to 600k. Could someone touch on this, and
> give some pointers to what happened here? Was there a general rationale
> behind this, or was the new ED simply a tougher negotiator? Are there any
> catches how these numbers are being presented, and how they should be read
> and not misinterpreted?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-05-19 8:52 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> Hoi,
>> For a bit of background form 990 is probably something everybody knows
>> about as it is financial and important and that is why we mention this..
>> For all of you who do not know, we have a FAQ where you may find what is
>> relevant about all this.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> PS sorry Greg for pulling your leg. :)
>>
>> On 18 May 2016 at 20:55, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
>>
>> > Sent on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation's Finance Team:
>> >
>> > The Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014 - 2015 has been posted on
>> the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation Wiki's Financial Reports page:
>> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports
>> >
>> > A list of answers to frequently asked questions about this form has also
>> > been posted on the same page.
>> >
>> > Please contact Jaime Villagomez or Tony Le with any questions:
>> > jvillago...@wikimedia.org or t...@wikimedia.org
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Finance Team
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> ___
>> 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

[Chris Keating]

Hoi,


> First, there's an overview of 'highest paid contractors' (for reading
> along: page 61) and the top one is a law firm for 1.7 Million USD. Which is
> quite a big sum of money.


I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am
surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had
the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things
themselves).

It would be useful to know a bit more about this figure.

Regards,

Chris
___
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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
For a bit of background form 990 is probably something everybody knows
about as it is financial and important and that is why we mention this..
For all of you who do not know, we have a FAQ where you may find what is
relevant about all this.
Thanks,
GerardM

PS sorry Greg for pulling your leg. :)

On 18 May 2016 at 20:55, Gregory Varnum  wrote:

> Sent on behalf of Wikimedia Foundation's Finance Team:
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014 - 2015 has been posted on the
> Wikimedia Foundation Wiki's Financial Reports page:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports
>
> A list of answers to frequently asked questions about this form has also
> been posted on the same page.
>
> Please contact Jaime Villagomez or Tony Le with any questions:
> jvillago...@wikimedia.org or t...@wikimedia.org
>
> Thank you,
> Finance Team
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
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,