Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Jimbo I understand you to say that the WMF could have afforded to spend $5M on direct support of volunteer contributors had it chosen to, without prejudice to the decision to place $5M into the Endowment. I seem to recall that you stated on Wikipedia that "I support expansion of the scholarship

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

> From: Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment > Message-ID: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of > endowment, The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one > of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit > of the projects today,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: >... regarding the Endowment: > > 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment. As James > indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides Foundation and this > is one of the areas of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > Just jumping in with a few points of information regarding the Endowment: > > 1) I met with Lukas at Wikimania regarding SRI and the endowment. As James > indicated, the endowment is invested through the Tides

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

James Certainly. When the probability of last year's fundraising effort generating more income than had been expected emerged, there was a discussion here about how that "surplus" might be used. There were some suggestions for using it to directly assist the members of the volunteer community

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Rogol I don't understanding how you have interpreted this as a choice between community and stability. Could you explain? Seddon On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Lisa > > Thanks anyway. Perhaps one of the members of the Board will comment, in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Sorry, I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak to that. On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Lisa > > Thanks for that explanation. If it had already been decided to contribute > the $5M to the Endowment before the offer of matching funds, then

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Lisa Thanks for that explanation. If it had already been decided to contribute the $5M to the Endowment before the offer of matching funds, then there would be no appearance of the offer influencing the Board's decision. Can you confirm that was the case? But the main point of my question to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Andrea I agree completely that movement monies should be invested inline with our values. We should not be invested in stuff that promotes war or surveillance for example. I would image this is currently the case but would have to verify. J On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Andrea Zanni

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Personally I think the endowment is a great idea, stability and growth for our movement are paramount, IF, we use our money in the best way we can. I also don't really care about how big the banner is: it's a minor inconvenience to click the "Hide" button (provided that we are able to hide

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Both stability and growth come at a cost - is that cost acceptable? The way I understand it from the mid-year fundrasing report in January, the $5M were on top of the fundraising target, basically gathered by exposing our readers to more banners than needed. My opinion is that's a very high price

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

My personal position is it is critical to have a stable organization before growing. The WMF has achieved greater stability over the last 1.5 years so I think further growth is becoming again a good idea. James On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of endowment, The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit of the projects today, and accumulating capital for the benefit of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

I am often critical of WMF, but I can only support this decision. The idea of creating of an environment was widely discussed in the community, including this mailing list, and had a widespread support. WMF merely follows the community wish in this case, and it is great to know that a donor agreed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Caveat: I support a definitely more frugal WMF so also the endowment. Try to read it from a different perspective. Before donating *lots* of money donor wants to be sure WMF will be truly committed in pursuing the plan of an endowment. Putting the same amount of money is a prove, for donors, WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

Thanks for the link, Rogol. It is wonderful to hear that these generous donors have decided to match a deposit of $5 million into the endowment. It is always a good thing if someone from the board could expand on what (if anything) the board is planning to do with the proposed expenses. The way

[Wikimedia-l] Funding the endowment

I was surprised to read the record https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Endowment_funding_(Fiscal_Year_2016-2017)_and_matching_$5_million_gift_from_Peter_Baldwin_and_Lisbet_Rausing of the decision to place $5M into the endowment. After the anouncement by Lisa Gruwell on