Thanks Patricio for the detailed answer which fully eliminated my concerns.
One thing that bothers me all the time is the very late answer from the
board. I'm pretty sure so many comments about Sue wouldn't be said if you
sent this response earlier. We've been through this that these statements
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
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:50 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Patricio Lorente wrote:
>>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
>>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
> Thank you for this e-mail.
Patricio Lorente wrote:
>We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
>provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
Thank you for this e-mail.
>One point of confusion is for the period this compensation covers. This is
Agree this is much clearer than the prior answer. Thank you
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown and effort to provide detailed
> responses to the various questions that have been asked here, and
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  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
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
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,
Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown and effort to provide detailed
responses to the various questions that have been asked here, and
No-doubt there will be follow-up questions or requests for clarification,
but I just wanted to say thanks to the team of people who evidently put
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.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Brion Vibber
We’ve heard your questions and want to address them broadly, as well as
provide more information about the breakdown of Sue’s compensation during
this time. We understand the confusion related to this recent 990, given
the period it covers, and the aggregate amounts it reports. Below
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
Many volunteer organisations have mandatory training for volunteers, so
that in itself is not a bad idea. But what about the cross-project
differences that Risker brings up?
And more importantly, how could such training help when faced with the type
of harassment that is referenced 99% of the
I fully agree with Risker. I feel this discussion is only (mainly)
looking at enwp. Harassment probably exist on all versions but the
seriously of the issue look very differently.
Being the most active user and sysop on a smaller version (svwp) I do
not recognize the issues being discussed.
Hmmm. I find this recommendation concerning. There *might* be some
validity on large projects with hundreds of administrators, but there are a
lot of projects with only a few admins, and they were "selected" because
they were willing to do the grunt work of deletions, protections, and
I think that if individual communities create a consensus to mandate
training, or if arbitration committees issue that mandate on particular
wikis, that's completely fine and good. I'm hesitant to say that WMF should
wield a stick to mandate this kind of training for administrators on
My suggestion is to come up with a general type training that can work for
all administrators and functionaries since all have the freedom and
permission to do all types of work on WMF projects. And that training
should be mandatory.
Then people who are focusing on a particular type of
Very exciting and inspiring! Thanks for sharing Ivan!
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Hasive N. Chowdhury <
> Great to know Ivan. All the best for Wikimedia Mexico.
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Martínez wrote:
Thanks for that link. I think that for now I would suggest avoiding making
the training mandatory because we won't know how successful it is until
after we've used it for awhile. After the training has been tested and
refined based on feedback, and if the consensus is that the training
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,
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
Mail list logo