Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Michael Snow]

On 3/14/2013 11:36 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, Michael Snow  wrote:

I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis,
even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. I'm
pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for some
time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have remained flat
over that period.

I'm actually not using the traffic for financial analysis. I'm only using
the trend in traffic to compare the hosting costs - I think it would be
fair to assume that both are intrinsically linked. :)

The analysis of 6M/ year wasn't based on traffic at all, it was from the
annual budget and expenditure I saw in the reports, though that was an
envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis, it wasn't entirely based on
conjectures either.
I didn't say you used traffic ranking to support your own estimate, you 
used it to try and rebut the estimates provided by Erik and others. 
That's still a kind of analysis.

  I also think its unfair to compare Wikipedia with
google, but if you were to take a top 10 traffic website and separate
their infrastructure and cap-ex, and look at annual operational costs
especially with things like bandwidth cost, it would have to be comparable.
(Maybe not for google but let's say for twitter or linked.in - comparable
bandwidth usage *is* the reason they are in the same league.)
The point about Google was strictly to illustrate how useless traffic 
ranking is for extrapolating about trends in operational costs. It's not 
a suggestion that Wikimedia can or should compare its cost structure to 
Google's.


--Michael Snow


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[James Alexander]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Theo10011  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, James Alexander  wrote:
> >
> > Aye, I know for example that our page views have more then doubled in the
> > last 5 years (since 2008) and I believe grew even more dramatically in
> the
> > years before that.
>
>
> They increased a lot, but I don't think they more than doubled, or even
> doubled[2]. The rise is pretty steady from Feb 09.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
>
According to http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/ (which is, I believe, the
official numbers from the logs and comscore) we went from 9.55B page views
in July 2008 to 21.79B page views in Feb 2013. We also went from 242M
uniques in January 2008 to 488M in 2013 (I believe comscore undercounts
developing countries where less advertising is focused as well so that
number is probably more dramatic).

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Theo10011]

Hi Michael

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, Michael Snow  wrote:

> I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis,
> even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. I'm
> pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for some
> time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have remained flat
> over that period.
>

I'm actually not using the traffic for financial analysis. I'm only using
the trend in traffic to compare the hosting costs - I think it would be
fair to assume that both are intrinsically linked. :)

The analysis of 6M/ year wasn't based on traffic at all, it was from the
annual budget and expenditure I saw in the reports, though that was an
envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis, it wasn't entirely based on
conjectures either. I also think its unfair to compare Wikipedia with
google, but if you were to take a top 10 traffic website and separate
their infrastructure and cap-ex, and look at annual operational costs
especially with things like bandwidth cost, it would have to be comparable.
(Maybe not for google but let's say for twitter or linked.in - comparable
bandwidth usage *is* the reason they are in the same league.)


> Aside from that, it's only recently that Wikimedia sites have approached
> having the kind of redundancy and failover capabilities we've talked about
> needing for a long time. That's at least one example of something that can
> add pretty significant costs without having a material impact on traffic
> (except in emergencies, of course).


I wouldn't know about the redundancies or those capabilities, it seems
fairly the same. My location and perspective might have more to do with
that but I just don't see the change as that dramatic. I wouldn't say there
isn't any change, from a performance stand-point, it just seems
incrementally better - outages still happen[1], there
are occasionally things that break, and minor lag issues persist on the
other side of the world. I'm grateful for the improvements but I wouldn't
really know what changed under the surface.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, James Alexander  wrote:
>
> Aye, I know for example that our page views have more then doubled in the
> last 5 years (since 2008) and I believe grew even more dramatically in the
> years before that.


They increased a lot, but I don't think they more than doubled, or even
doubled[2]. The rise is pretty steady from Feb 09.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://blog.wikimedia.org/c/technology/operations/outage/
[2]
http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/RC_2012_02_detailed.html#fragment-31
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[George Herbert]

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:57 PM, Michael Snow  wrote:

> Aside from that, it's only recently that Wikimedia sites have approached 
> having the kind of redundancy and failover capabilities we've talked about 
> needing for a long time. That's at least one example of something that can 
> add pretty significant costs without having a material impact on traffic 
> (except in emergencies, of course).

This.

The data in the various Wikis and ability for people to get to it and maintain 
it are a public trust.

Before there was much Foundation or money, as internet public services are wont 
to do, a shoestring needed to suffice.  It would not be responsible to go back 
to those days.  It would actually be a betrayal of the trust and intent of 
those donations over the years.

That is not to say that there is no way that technology or ops tools cannot 
eventually possibly shrink those costs.  But we should be prepared to keep 
spending that much.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[James Alexander]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Michael Snow wrote:

> On 3/14/2013 10:26 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>>
>>> Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not
>>> include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.;
>>> budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of
>>> course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an
>>> organizational support structure (management/administration, legal,
>>> etc.).
>>>
>> I'm not technically inclined, but those numbers sound odd. Maybe I'm
>> missing something? The traffic ranking didn't go up nearly as
>> substantially
>> in the last couple of years as the hosting and cap-ex mentioned above.
>>
> I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis,
> even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. I'm
> pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for some
> time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have remained flat
> over that period.
>
> Aside from that, it's only recently that Wikimedia sites have approached
> having the kind of redundancy and failover capabilities we've talked about
> needing for a long time. That's at least one example of something that can
> add pretty significant costs without having a material impact on traffic
> (except in emergencies, of course).
>
> --Michael Snow


Aye, I know for example that our page views have more then doubled in the
last 5 years (since 2008) and I believe grew even more dramatically in the
years before that.

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Michael Snow]

On 3/14/2013 10:26 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013, Erik Moeller  wrote:

Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not
include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.;
budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of
course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an
organizational support structure (management/administration, legal,
etc.).

I'm not technically inclined, but those numbers sound odd. Maybe I'm
missing something? The traffic ranking didn't go up nearly as substantially
in the last couple of years as the hosting and cap-ex mentioned above.
I'm not sure why you would use traffic ranking for financial analysis, 
even the envelope-and-napkin kind of analysis we're engaging in here. 
I'm pretty confident that just because Google has been sitting at #1 for 
some time, it doesn't mean that their core operational costs have 
remained flat over that period.


Aside from that, it's only recently that Wikimedia sites have approached 
having the kind of redundancy and failover capabilities we've talked 
about needing for a long time. That's at least one example of something 
that can add pretty significant costs without having a material impact 
on traffic (except in emergencies, of course).


--Michael Snow


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[rupert THURNER]

currently the bylaws say: transfer the money to any 501(c)
organisation. wmf would not be allowed to be charitable in switzerland
as it is not guaranteed the donors money end up what it was ment for:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#Section_2._Distribution_of_Assets.

rupert.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
> Parallel to that question, is what happens to the endowment if the WMF is
> wound up. This would be of some interest to possible donors.
> In principle I am in favour of an endowment.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> - Original Message - From: "phoebe ayers" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment
>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Lisa Gruwell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My team here at the foundation has begun to do a little leg work so that
>>> we
>>> are ready to go, if the Board should decide to pursue an endowment.  We
>>> have begun to "tip our toes" into the world of planned giving and have
>>> had
>>> conversations with some of our major donors about it.  At this point, the
>>> planned gifts are for general support, but our strategy would likely be
>>> to
>>> direct these types of gifts to an endowment, if we go that route.  We
>>> also
>>> set up a simple page on the foundation site about planned giving or
>>> "Legacy
>>> Gifts," as we are calling it.
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Legacy_Gift
>>>
>>> So far, the conversations have gone well.  There is an interesting
>>> challenge in that donors have to be convinced that the organization is
>>> going to be relevant in 20 or 30 years (or in the case of an endowment –
>>> forever).  I'd love to hear your best arguments for why that this true.
>>> (Or
>>> maybe we could devote some thinking to this during the next strategic
>>> planning process).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Lisa Gruwell
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Lisa -- now *that's* a good question :) I added a quick section to
>> the endowment page, if people want to discuss there:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment#Will_we_be_relevant_in3F
>>
>> -- phoebe
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>>
>> -
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5673 - Release Date: 03/14/13
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Theo10011]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not
> include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.;
> budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of
> course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an
> organizational support structure (management/administration, legal,
> etc.).
>

I'm not technically inclined, but those numbers sound odd. Maybe I'm
missing something? The traffic ranking didn't go up nearly as substantially
in the last couple of years as the hosting and cap-ex mentioned above. The
total listed revenue for 06/07 is around 2.7 Million, 07/08 is 5 million,
08/09 is 8.6 million from there on it started doubling, but that was the
total revenue at the time, assuming it had to be higher than the actual
hosting cost. I don't think there were any substantial visitor milestones
crossed after that, another argument could be made that the costs
associated with hosting went down in that period. Either way, the two don't
seem to be growing at the same pace.


>
> What's a bare minimum amount? It's a hard question to answer, because
> it depends on what you consider an acceptable bare minimum.
>
> - Is it acceptable for the projects to be without legal defense?
> - Is it acceptable to revert back to a single data center mode of
> operation?
> - Is it acceptable for ops to just barely be able to keep the lights
> on, with minimal effort dedicated to backups/monitoring/maintenance,
> etc.?
> - Is it acceptable for there to be no software engineers to aid with
> reviewing code contributions, and making improvements to the software?
> and so on.


How about door #3. Any idea what amount that would be close to. "Ops
keeping the light on" seems like a good definition of core.


>
> WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
> staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
> an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
> actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
> level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
> magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
> for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
> because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
> to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.


In 2011, I calculated that amount to be closer to $6M/year from a
diversified low-to-medium risk portfolio. A fund like that would need to
have a variable yield above a certain set amount to negate any year-on-year
increases. I believe there are companies that can calculate the annual
projected cost over the next 10 years and suggest options.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:

> We also have to consider what these costs will be in 5 years and beyond to
> know really how big an endowment would need to be.  This will require some
> fairly complicated projects, that will most certainly be wrong at some
> point in time.  :)


Actually, that's the benefit of separating the costs between core and
non-core. The projection for the hosting and bare-minimum operations
already has 10 year of past data to draw from. The cost would also remain
the same for every large internet property, things like bandwidth and
datacenter usage would be fairly the same for everyone.

The non-core expenses however are a different story. They depend on
whatever direction the foundation chooses. Those expenses would be nearly
impossible to predict from what I've seen.

Regards
Theo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Peter Southwood]

Parallel to that question, is what happens to the endowment if the WMF is 
wound up. This would be of some interest to possible donors.

In principle I am in favour of an endowment.
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message - 
From: "phoebe ayers" 

To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Lisa Gruwell 
wrote:


My team here at the foundation has begun to do a little leg work so that 
we

are ready to go, if the Board should decide to pursue an endowment.  We
have begun to "tip our toes" into the world of planned giving and have 
had

conversations with some of our major donors about it.  At this point, the
planned gifts are for general support, but our strategy would likely be 
to
direct these types of gifts to an endowment, if we go that route.  We 
also
set up a simple page on the foundation site about planned giving or 
"Legacy

Gifts," as we are calling it.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Legacy_Gift

So far, the conversations have gone well.  There is an interesting
challenge in that donors have to be convinced that the organization is
going to be relevant in 20 or 30 years (or in the case of an endowment –
forever).  I'd love to hear your best arguments for why that this true. 
(Or

maybe we could devote some thinking to this during the next strategic
planning process).

Best,
Lisa Gruwell



Thanks Lisa -- now *that's* a good question :) I added a quick section to
the endowment page, if people want to discuss there:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment#Will_we_be_relevant_in3F

-- phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5673 - Release Date: 03/14/13




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Grants Program Retrospective 2009-2012 published

[Samuel Klein]

After reading this more thoroughly:  I am deeply impressed.  This sort
of review should be carried out for all major ongoing projects.

For instance, it could be useful to have a similar retrospective on
major technical features that have been implemented or formally
requested by large Wikimedia wikis over the past 4 years -- and those
that have been developed by the WMF and either implemented or not
(depending on how they were received).   I realized recently that many
developers believe their work's implementation, and what it is
possible for them to accomplish, is governed by whether the community
likes it or not.  Meanwhile many community members feel they have no
control over what features are developed or prioritized.  An
independent review could help demystify that cycle.

SJ

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:23 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Asaf Bartov wrote:
>>Another component of the Wikimedia Foundation's increased focus on
>>grantmaking is now ready for discussion: it is a retrospective report on
>>the history, evolution, and processes of the Wikimedia Grants Program (the
>>Foundation's first, and until fairly recently only, grants program).
>>
>>We were interested in an independent report by someone with a good
>>understanding of wikis and our shared values, and chose a local Wikipedian
>>named Kevin Gorman (User:Kevin Gorman), active on English Wikipedia, who
>>has volunteered in the Wikipedia Education Program and also had an
>>(unpaid) internship at the Foundation office in San Francisco for a few
>>months in 2011.  Kevin was paid our standard contractor wage for his work
>>on this.
>>
>>Kevin has posted the report here:
>>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Retrospective_2009-2012
>
> Hi.
>
> I haven't had a chance to read the report yet, but I just want to say
> thank you for the transparency here. :-)
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Lisa Gruwell]

We also have to consider what these costs will be in 5 years and beyond to
know really how big an endowment would need to be.  This will require some
fairly complicated projects, that will most certainly be wrong at some
point in time.  :)

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
> >> [Hosting...] Then various operational and administrative costs. My
> finger in the
> >> air estimate would be a total of about $4m-$5m.
> >>
> >> It is important to know how much money is going on essentials and how
> much
> >> on nice-to-haves. (That ought to be how the core/non-core split works,
> really)
>
> I think a useful breakdown is
> {([ + core operations] + core projects) + additional
> projects} = budget
>
> The boundaries get fuzzier, moving out.
>  Hosting :Bandwidth and hardware; has two line-items in the budget.
>  Core ops :  Everything needed to make hosting work with [reasonable]
> uptime / disaster response / critical updates.
>  Core projects :  Everything needed to make the Projects and
> Foundation work with [reasonable] efficiency and accessibility.
> Including fundraising, financial and legal project support,
> development of major features, mediawiki platform innovation, support
> for community tech innovation.
>  Additional projects A :  Efforts to upgrade "reasonable" service to
> "excellent".  Support for new Projects. Experiments in engagement /
> collaboration / governance.
>  Additional projects B :  Work to bridge gaps in current projects,
> research to find solutions to unsolved problems, outreach to new
> audiences.  Other exploratory work, e.g., in design / communication /
> education / dissemination / translation.
>
> There are other ways we could classify our work.  There are options
> for in-kind donations or volunteer-run versions of many costs, though
> this is not always sustainable.  There are options for degrading the
> quality of services rather than dropping them entirely.
>
> This classification isn't perfectly tied to long-term importance: it
> focuses on things we've already done and want to protect.  Something
> supported by an "additional" project today may become a core project
> tomorrow, or key to the future of the movement... or it may be spun
> off or handed off to a partner.
>
> Last year, our definition of "non-core" WMF projects was I believe
> similar to group "B" above.
>
> SJ
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Samuel Klein]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:45 PM, George Herbert
 wrote:
>> [Hosting...] Then various operational and administrative costs. My finger in 
>> the
>> air estimate would be a total of about $4m-$5m.
>>
>> It is important to know how much money is going on essentials and how much
>> on nice-to-haves. (That ought to be how the core/non-core split works, 
>> really)

I think a useful breakdown is
{([ + core operations] + core projects) + additional
projects} = budget

The boundaries get fuzzier, moving out.
 Hosting :Bandwidth and hardware; has two line-items in the budget.
 Core ops :  Everything needed to make hosting work with [reasonable]
uptime / disaster response / critical updates.
 Core projects :  Everything needed to make the Projects and
Foundation work with [reasonable] efficiency and accessibility.
Including fundraising, financial and legal project support,
development of major features, mediawiki platform innovation, support
for community tech innovation.
 Additional projects A :  Efforts to upgrade "reasonable" service to
"excellent".  Support for new Projects. Experiments in engagement /
collaboration / governance.
 Additional projects B :  Work to bridge gaps in current projects,
research to find solutions to unsolved problems, outreach to new
audiences.  Other exploratory work, e.g., in design / communication /
education / dissemination / translation.

There are other ways we could classify our work.  There are options
for in-kind donations or volunteer-run versions of many costs, though
this is not always sustainable.  There are options for degrading the
quality of services rather than dropping them entirely.

This classification isn't perfectly tied to long-term importance: it
focuses on things we've already done and want to protect.  Something
supported by an "additional" project today may become a core project
tomorrow, or key to the future of the movement... or it may be spun
off or handed off to a partner.

Last year, our definition of "non-core" WMF projects was I believe
similar to group "B" above.

SJ

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:51 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton  
> wrote:
>
>> Last year's financial report shows almost exactly $2.5m for "Internet
>> hosting". I'm not sure quite what that covers
>
> Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not
> include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.;
> budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of
> course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an
> organizational support structure (management/administration, legal,
> etc.).
>
> What's a bare minimum amount? It's a hard question to answer, because
> it depends on what you consider an acceptable bare minimum.
>
> - Is it acceptable for the projects to be without legal defense?
> - Is it acceptable to revert back to a single data center mode of operation?
> - Is it acceptable for ops to just barely be able to keep the lights
> on, with minimal effort dedicated to backups/monitoring/maintenance,
> etc.?
> - Is it acceptable for there to be no software engineers to aid with
> reviewing code contributions, and making improvements to the software?
> and so on.
>
> WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
> staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
> an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
> actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
> level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
> magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
> sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
> for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
> because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
> to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.

I like the fact that megalomania is infectious and escalating disease,
which has roots in reality :)

I started to write something like: Come on, it's better to have a bare
minimum than nothing. Then I realized that WMF endowment needs two
year of Mozilla's income. Thus, quite possible for WMF, as well. Not
in two, but yes in five or so years.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Liam Wyatt]

On 15 March 2013 01:51, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> The "what's the level required
> for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
> because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
> to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.
>

Perhaps a more useful measure is to look at the differentiation in the WMF
budget between what is considered "core" and what is approved by the FDC.
How much is that "core" amount (for this year, at least) and how large
would an endowment would be needed to pay for the maintenance and probable
steady growth of that amount?

-Liam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> Last year's financial report shows almost exactly $2.5m for "Internet
> hosting". I'm not sure quite what that covers

Only data-center usage (facilities, bandwidth, power). It does not
include capital expenditures (servers, storage, network gear, etc.;
budgeted at $1.9M in 2012-13) nor ops engineering staffing, nor of
course any software engineering staffing or the basics of an
organizational support structure (management/administration, legal,
etc.).

What's a bare minimum amount? It's a hard question to answer, because
it depends on what you consider an acceptable bare minimum.

- Is it acceptable for the projects to be without legal defense?
- Is it acceptable to revert back to a single data center mode of operation?
- Is it acceptable for ops to just barely be able to keep the lights
on, with minimal effort dedicated to backups/monitoring/maintenance,
etc.?
- Is it acceptable for there to be no software engineers to aid with
reviewing code contributions, and making improvements to the software?
and so on.

WMF has operated in the past without staffing and with very minimal
staffing, so clearly it's _possible_ to host a high traffic website on
an absolute shoestring. But I would argue that an endowment, to
actually be worthwhile, should aim for a significantly higher base
level of minimal annual operating expenses, more in the order of
magnitude of $10M+/year, to ensure not only bare survival, but actual
sustainability of Wikimedia's mission. The "what's the level required
for bare survival" question is, IMO, only of marginal interest,
because it is much more desirable, and should be very much possible,
to raise funds for sustaining our mission in perpetuity.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Thomas Dalton  wrote:
> On Mar 15, 2013 12:21 AM, "MZMcBride"  wrote:
>>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> >On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >> It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for a year.
>> >
>> >How did you come up with that number?
>>
>> I used to say $2 million, but Roan recently told me that it had probably
>> gone up since that estimate (from 2009). So now I say $2.5 million. It's
>> advertised on Meta-Wiki here:
>> . ;-)
>>
>> As I recall, the $2 million (now $2.5 million) figure came from
>> discussions with technical staff about what it would cost to keep the site
>> running for a year and an examination of relevant Wikimedia-related budget
>> breakdowns that were split out between non-technical staff costs, overhead
>> costs, etc. However, following Cunningham's Law, if you have a better
>> figure, please share. :-)  We can certainly say it's far less than $35
>> million to only keep the sites up and running (barebones hosting support
>> and related tech staff costs), the question is how much less.
>
> Last year's financial report shows almost exactly $2.5m for "Internet
> hosting". I'm not sure quite what that covers, but I expect it is all
> necessary for bare minimum hosting of the sites. There will then be some
> salaries for the people maintaining the site. Some legal and accounting
> people. An ED (although not as well paid as Sue, since they would be
> running a much smaller organisation). Then various operational and
> administrative costs. My finger in the air estimate would be a total of
> about $4m-$5m.
>
> I think the foundation should include such an estimate in their financial
> planning. It is important to know how much money is going on essentials and
> how much on nice-to-haves. (That ought to be how the core/non-core split
> works, really...)

I'm not sure on that definition of core / non-core, but I think the
general idea would be useful.



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Thomas Dalton]

On Mar 15, 2013 12:21 AM, "MZMcBride"  wrote:
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> >> It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for a year.
> >
> >How did you come up with that number?
>
> I used to say $2 million, but Roan recently told me that it had probably
> gone up since that estimate (from 2009). So now I say $2.5 million. It's
> advertised on Meta-Wiki here:
> . ;-)
>
> As I recall, the $2 million (now $2.5 million) figure came from
> discussions with technical staff about what it would cost to keep the site
> running for a year and an examination of relevant Wikimedia-related budget
> breakdowns that were split out between non-technical staff costs, overhead
> costs, etc. However, following Cunningham's Law, if you have a better
> figure, please share. :-)  We can certainly say it's far less than $35
> million to only keep the sites up and running (barebones hosting support
> and related tech staff costs), the question is how much less.

Last year's financial report shows almost exactly $2.5m for "Internet
hosting". I'm not sure quite what that covers, but I expect it is all
necessary for bare minimum hosting of the sites. There will then be some
salaries for the people maintaining the site. Some legal and accounting
people. An ED (although not as well paid as Sue, since they would be
running a much smaller organisation). Then various operational and
administrative costs. My finger in the air estimate would be a total of
about $4m-$5m.

I think the foundation should include such an estimate in their financial
planning. It is important to know how much money is going on essentials and
how much on nice-to-haves. (That ought to be how the core/non-core split
works, really...)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[MZMcBride]

Erik Moeller wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for a year.
>
>How did you come up with that number?

I used to say $2 million, but Roan recently told me that it had probably
gone up since that estimate (from 2009). So now I say $2.5 million. It's
advertised on Meta-Wiki here:
. ;-)

As I recall, the $2 million (now $2.5 million) figure came from
discussions with technical staff about what it would cost to keep the site
running for a year and an examination of relevant Wikimedia-related budget
breakdowns that were split out between non-technical staff costs, overhead
costs, etc. However, following Cunningham's Law, if you have a better
figure, please share. :-)  We can certainly say it's far less than $35
million to only keep the sites up and running (barebones hosting support
and related tech staff costs), the question is how much less.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] GLAM-Wiki 2013 - one month to go!

[Andrew Gray]

Hi all, and apologies for crossposting -

We've been pushing ahead with the last stages of planning for the
GLAM-Wiki conference these past couple of weeks, and I thought I'd
send around a reminder that it'll be four weeks from now!

The conference will be looking at the work done by Wikimedians working
with cultural organisations over recent years, and highlighting the
prospects for future cooperation. It will involve a series of talks
and reports (Friday), workshops (Saturday), and an
unconference\hackathon run by THATcamp (Sunday).

The conference is hosted by the British Library in London from 12-14
April, and organised by Wikimedia UK with support from Wikimedia
Sweden and Europeana. Speakers include Michael Edson (Smithsonian),
Lizzy Jongma (Rijksmuseum), and Nick Poole (Collections Trust), as
well as twenty or thirty others from inside and outside the Wikimedia
community. More details on WMUK's blog post:
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2013/03/glam-wiki-celebrating-culture-and-open-access/

An outline of the conference is here:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2013 with a detailed schedule
here: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_2013/Schedule

Looking forward to seeing some of you there, and please do circulate
this to anyone who might be interested!

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[George Herbert]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
>> It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for a year.
>
> How did you come up with that number?
>
> Erik

Can you propose a better number for arguments' sake (not a
firm-committed-accurate number, but for the sake of argument is it
roughly $2.5 million, $5 million, $10 million, ?

Thanks.

[capacity planning wonk hat on] Of course, this is a shifting target,
and we really would need to consider both edit and readership growth
patterns along with cost patterns over long times for bare server,
CPU, RAM, storage, and network equipment, as well as systems
management trends and total effort to maintain the code on a minimal
keep-viable basis.  [capacity planning wonk hat off]


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia course to launch next week on School of Open Fwd: [okfn-br]

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Carolina Rossini 
Date: 2013/3/14
Subject: [okfn-br] Wikipedia course to launch next week on School of Open
To: rea-li...@googlegroups.com, "Grupo de interesse em conhecimento livre
no Brasil, especialmente dados abertos" 




-- Forwarded message --
From: Cable Green 


You might be interested in this new School of
OpenCourse: Writing
Wikipedia Articles: The Basics and
Beyond

Cable




 *14 March 2013*
We have an exciting announcement: next week we launch a free online course
focused on OER coverage on Wikipedia, and you're invited to enroll.
  *Writing Wikipedia Articles: The Basics and
Beyond
*

This will be one of several facilitated, synchronous courses marking the
launch of the School of Open, a new venture of Peer to Peer University.
Instructor Pete Forsyth, a veteran Wikipedia contributor and trainer, will
lead live webinars every Tuesday. We will also feature experts in Wikipedia
editing and in open educational resources in two roundtable sessions.
Students will work on Wikipedia articles throughout the course, and share
their experiences contributing to the largest collaborative project in
human history.

The course will run from 19 March to 23 April, at 15:30 GMT. The timing
should work well for the Americas (morning) and Europe and Africa
(afternoon). We plan to offer the course a second time, starting in late
April or early May, at a time that works better for Australia and Asia.
  Want to learn a bit about Wikipedia? Or would you like to find a way to
make its articles relating to OER more accurate and informative? Join the
course today! We look forward to working with you.
https://p2pu.org/en/courses/49/writing-wikipedia-articles-the-basics-and-beyond/

 -Pete, Sara, Bob and Lex
Communicate OER
project
Twitter: 
@CommOER


*p.s. Going to any OER conferences soon? We look forward to seeing you! We
will be sharing the wiki love at the following events:*

   - *OER 
13in
Nottingham, UK (March)
   *
   - *Hewlett Education Grantees Meeting in San Diego, California (April)*
   - *Connexions
Conference,
Houston,
   Texas (April)*

*
*
*
*
 Communicate OER is funded by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation.




-- 


Cable Green, PhD
Director of Global Learning
Creative Commons
@cgreen 
http://creativecommons.org/education
https://creativecommons.net/donate

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"OER Advocacy Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to oer-advocacy-coalition+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oer-advocacy-coalit...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/oer-advocacy-coalition?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.ross...@gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


___
okfn-br mailing list
okfn...@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-br
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-br




-- 
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
OKFN Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
http://br.okfn.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[rupert THURNER]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Aha, a welcome topic :)
>
> MZMcBride writes:
>> I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
>> want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
>> later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
>> to put their money, I think.
>
> Yes, let us build an endowment.
> It makes practical sense: As a community institution that aims to
> serve our society for the next 100 years, it matches our scope and
> vision.  And as a respected and visible global project, we can raise
> the funds we need.
>
> It also makes financial sense: Some donors prefer to donate to one.
> And there are economies of scale: the flexibility of long-term
> investments let them generate better average returns, and large funds
> can invest significantly more effectively than small ones.

let me play advocatus diaboli here ...

the strong point of the wikimedia movement always has been that it
attracts small donations, which are of immediate use. some reserves to
allow keep the lights on for a couple of years is very understandable.
lets assume our donors are "average people", people who have the time
to click and give 10 dollars. why should somebody who earns a little
salary want to give 10 dollars to a foundation which has 40 million on
its bank account?

ok - you say the movement does not need these little donations any
more, because if the foundation would have 800 million dollar it would
leave 40 million to spend as well (5% interest rate). but what if the
foundation only has 200 million? this earns only 10 million a year,
and the sum might be sufficient that we might loose the donors which
made this success possible.

and you say, some people might really _want_ to donate to an endowment
fund, just let the people choose. but - does this choice cannibalize
the "normal" donations of people who do not want to donate to an
endowment fund?

if yes, then the foundation, the websites, and the content got
disconnected from the donors, and from the contributors.

advocatus diaboli mode out.

rupert.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Victor Grigas]

Lisa,

The article cites no exact reason for the longevity of Wikipedia
specifically, but does talk about passion to a mission:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/03/yuri-milner-google-facebook-100-years


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:52 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Lisa Gruwell  >wrote:
>
> > My team here at the foundation has begun to do a little leg work so that
> we
> > are ready to go, if the Board should decide to pursue an endowment.  We
> > have begun to "tip our toes" into the world of planned giving and have
> had
> > conversations with some of our major donors about it.  At this point, the
> > planned gifts are for general support, but our strategy would likely be
> to
> > direct these types of gifts to an endowment, if we go that route.  We
> also
> > set up a simple page on the foundation site about planned giving or
> "Legacy
> > Gifts," as we are calling it.
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Legacy_Gift
> >
> > So far, the conversations have gone well.  There is an interesting
> > challenge in that donors have to be convinced that the organization is
> > going to be relevant in 20 or 30 years (or in the case of an endowment –
> > forever).  I'd love to hear your best arguments for why that this true.
> (Or
> > maybe we could devote some thinking to this during the next strategic
> > planning process).
> >
> > Best,
> > Lisa Gruwell
>
>
> Thanks Lisa -- now *that's* a good question :) I added a quick section to
> the endowment page, if people want to discuss there:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment#Will_we_be_relevant_in3F
>
> -- phoebe
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller 
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773
149 New Montgomery Street 6th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote:

> My team here at the foundation has begun to do a little leg work so that we
> are ready to go, if the Board should decide to pursue an endowment.  We
> have begun to "tip our toes" into the world of planned giving and have had
> conversations with some of our major donors about it.  At this point, the
> planned gifts are for general support, but our strategy would likely be to
> direct these types of gifts to an endowment, if we go that route.  We also
> set up a simple page on the foundation site about planned giving or "Legacy
> Gifts," as we are calling it.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Legacy_Gift
>
> So far, the conversations have gone well.  There is an interesting
> challenge in that donors have to be convinced that the organization is
> going to be relevant in 20 or 30 years (or in the case of an endowment –
> forever).  I'd love to hear your best arguments for why that this true. (Or
> maybe we could devote some thinking to this during the next strategic
> planning process).
>
> Best,
> Lisa Gruwell


Thanks Lisa -- now *that's* a good question :) I added a quick section to
the endowment page, if people want to discuss there:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment#Will_we_be_relevant_in3F

-- phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Lisa Gruwell]

My team here at the foundation has begun to do a little leg work so that we
are ready to go, if the Board should decide to pursue an endowment.  We
have begun to "tip our toes" into the world of planned giving and have had
conversations with some of our major donors about it.  At this point, the
planned gifts are for general support, but our strategy would likely be to
direct these types of gifts to an endowment, if we go that route.  We also
set up a simple page on the foundation site about planned giving or "Legacy
Gifts," as we are calling it.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Legacy_Gift

So far, the conversations have gone well.  There is an interesting
challenge in that donors have to be convinced that the organization is
going to be relevant in 20 or 30 years (or in the case of an endowment –
forever).  I'd love to hear your best arguments for why that this true. (Or
maybe we could devote some thinking to this during the next strategic
planning process).

Best,
Lisa Gruwell

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Aha, a welcome topic :)
>
> MZMcBride writes:
> > I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
> > want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
> > later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
> > to put their money, I think.
>
> Yes, let us build an endowment.
> It makes practical sense: As a community institution that aims to
> serve our society for the next 100 years, it matches our scope and
> vision.  And as a respected and visible global project, we can raise
> the funds we need.
>
> It also makes financial sense: Some donors prefer to donate to one.
> And there are economies of scale: the flexibility of long-term
> investments let them generate better average returns, and large funds
> can invest significantly more effectively than small ones.
>
>
> Anders Wennersten  writes:
> > I was marginally involved on this issue two years ago. And by then the
> > focus/priority was to ramp up the Fundraising activities.
> >
> > As this now has been successfully done, I believe this discussion is
> > now much better in timing, and worthwhile to work through
>
> Right.  When we first considered an endowment, the WMF didn't have the
> financial expertise to set one up; later, in 2010, fundraising was
> growing quite quickly and took priority.  Now we are in a good
> position to plan longer-term investments.
>
> This is good timing for another reason as well.  These issues were
> raised at the WMF Audit Committee meeting last week, and the WMF is
> considering what an endowment might look like.  Strong community
> support would speed that consideration.
>
> SJ
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 14 March 2013 13:00, Manuel Schneider 
> wrote:
> > Thanks Andrew and Philippe for your explanation and links.
> >
> > So that is a plan to build a reserve of funds that is so big that the
> > operation can be funded by the capital's gain - interest, dividends...
>
> Yes, although "reserve" generally refers to money kept in case
> something goes wrong. An endowment would be a separate fund
> specifically raised for that purpose.
> 
>
It doesn't need
> to fund the entire budget to be useful, though, and can be built up
> over time (eg. from legacies in people's wills).
>

Yes. In an university context, which is what I'm most familiar with (and
where endowments are very common in the U.S.), there is often a specific
"endowment campaign" to plan for and build the endowment that is separate
from normal fundraising -- for instance, you might have a dedicated team
that would work on the endowment, solicit wealthy donors, etc.

And in turn, the endowment is not meant to fund all expenses or to preempt
normal fundraising. It can fund some expenses, and provides long-term
stability for the organization. Endowments often come about when you either
have a very wealthy donor who is setting up a foundation, or when you have
a humanitarian institution that wants to be in business essentially forever
(as is the case with most universities).

There is complicated law and best practice around endowments that I don't
pretend to understand. I do know it's more complicated than setting up a
bank account and calling it the endowment fund, at least to do it well.
Having an endowment would ideally be a part of the WMF's strategic and
long-term financial plan, with some dedicated resources (i.e. staff time to
manage the fund and solicit donations) applied to it. And we would want to
be clear on what we wanted the endowment to do -- what its role would be
over time -- and how it would interact and perhaps affect annual
fundraising.

All that said, I strongly support the idea, on the principle that what we
do is important for the long-term and needs to be supported as such. We did
discuss the idea during my time on the board, a year or so ago, and it
sounds like it's coming up again, which is great!

-- phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Samuel Klein]

Aha, a welcome topic :)

MZMcBride writes:
> I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
> want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
> later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
> to put their money, I think.

Yes, let us build an endowment.
It makes practical sense: As a community institution that aims to
serve our society for the next 100 years, it matches our scope and
vision.  And as a respected and visible global project, we can raise
the funds we need.

It also makes financial sense: Some donors prefer to donate to one.
And there are economies of scale: the flexibility of long-term
investments let them generate better average returns, and large funds
can invest significantly more effectively than small ones.


Anders Wennersten  writes:
> I was marginally involved on this issue two years ago. And by then the
> focus/priority was to ramp up the Fundraising activities.
>
> As this now has been successfully done, I believe this discussion is
> now much better in timing, and worthwhile to work through

Right.  When we first considered an endowment, the WMF didn't have the
financial expertise to set one up; later, in 2010, fundraising was
growing quite quickly and took priority.  Now we are in a good
position to plan longer-term investments.

This is good timing for another reason as well.  These issues were
raised at the WMF Audit Committee meeting last week, and the WMF is
considering what an endowment might look like.  Strong community
support would speed that consideration.

SJ
--
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

[Orsolya Gyenes]

Thank you!

Can't wait to be launched in Hungary! ;)
*~Orsolya*


2013/3/14 Kul Wadhwa 

> Hi Orsolya,
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Orsolya Gyenes <
> gyenes.orso...@wiki.media.hu> wrote:
>
> > Is there a blog post or a press release about it?
> >
>
> The blog post is up:
>
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/13/wikipedia-zero-wins-2013-sxsw-interactive-activism-award/
>
> --
> Kul Wadhwa
> Head of Mobile
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

[Matthew Roth]

Blog post here:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/13/wikipedia-zero-wins-2013-sxsw-interactive-activism-award/

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Orsolya Gyenes <
gyenes.orso...@wiki.media.hu> wrote:

> Is there a blog post or a press release about it?
> *~Orsolya*
>
>
> 2013/3/14 Stephen LaPorte 
>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Where is the mythical award photo of which you speak?  SJ
> > >
> >
> > Mythical award photo:
> > https://twitter.com/thekulway/status/311636200979054592
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stephen LaPorte
> > Legal Counsel
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
> > Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a
> lawyer
> > for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> > capacity.*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 

Matthew Roth
Global Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6635
www.wikimediafoundation.org
*https://donate.wikimedia.org*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

[Kul Wadhwa]

Hi Orsolya,

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Orsolya Gyenes <
gyenes.orso...@wiki.media.hu> wrote:

> Is there a blog post or a press release about it?
>

The blog post is up:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/13/wikipedia-zero-wins-2013-sxsw-interactive-activism-award/

-- 
Kul Wadhwa
Head of Mobile
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia Zero wins!

[Orsolya Gyenes]

Is there a blog post or a press release about it?
*~Orsolya*


2013/3/14 Stephen LaPorte 

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
> > Where is the mythical award photo of which you speak?  SJ
> >
>
> Mythical award photo:
> https://twitter.com/thekulway/status/311636200979054592
>
>
> --
> Stephen LaPorte
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> *For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for the Wikimedia
> Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer
> for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal
> capacity.*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Anders Wennersten]

I was marginally involved on this issue two years ago. And by then the 
focus/priority was to ramp up the Fundraising activities.


As this now has been successfully done, I believe this discussion is now 
much better in timing, and worthwhile to work through


I like the idea that the basic running costs for servers etc should have 
guaranteed income by Endowments, but that the programmatic activities 
should still be dependent on the yearly fundraising


Anders

Theo10011 skrev 2013-03-14 19:23:

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:


As I understand it, the yearly annual Wikimedia Foundation budget is about
$35 million. It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for
a year. So even if an endowment weren't large enough to cover well over
130 full-time staff members, it could still keep us up and running for a
while. Assuming $2.5 million, that's about $125 million, using your
multiply by 50 formula. That's still a shitload of money, but it's much
less than $2 billion. :-)

I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
to put their money, I think.


This used to be my pet project for a while. My first edit to strategy wiki
was about an endowment fund[1], I don't think there was anything on the
subject before that one. Stu and Eugene's edit on the subject came later,
so I'll still take some credit for this one. ;)

I brought this up in person to a few board members, and to the foundation
staff on another mailing list an year or two ago. I believe they are all
aware of the idea and its implication. Eugene suggested at some point that
we should come back to this discussion later. The answers were always
ambiguous from what I recall.

There seems to be absence of a long term sustainable financial vision for
the foundation, or if there is, it doesn't seem to be public. The majority
of it seems to revolve around retaining x months of operational reserves
and putting all the chips on the annual fundraiser. I always thought that's
not a very mature financial strategy for an organization.

I started discussing this on strategy wiki, etc. and the first thought was
separating the core and non-core activities, and then separating the
funding models. The core activities are relatively stable, the non-core
differentiate a lot more year on year - moving the non-core to a variable
model where the revenue would define spending, and core activities to its
self-contained sustainable model would be an ideal strategy. The
bare-minimum operational cost of hosting, and being online, could be
covered with such a fund easily, leaving the annual fundraiser target to be
a variable each year without any target, which in turn can define the
spending. The correct calculation,as thomas started alluding to would be -
operating expenses + projected growth (year on year) + annual inflation
rate + reserve/contingency. I had a lot more worked out somewhere according
to tax laws and specific interest rates. Either way, the first implication
would be that this would nullify to some extent, the majority of the
urgency the fundraiser raises, the success of the fundraiser would be
irrelevant to the long term existence of the projects.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Wikipedia_Fund
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Theo10011]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

>
> As I understand it, the yearly annual Wikimedia Foundation budget is about
> $35 million. It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for
> a year. So even if an endowment weren't large enough to cover well over
> 130 full-time staff members, it could still keep us up and running for a
> while. Assuming $2.5 million, that's about $125 million, using your
> multiply by 50 formula. That's still a shitload of money, but it's much
> less than $2 billion. :-)
>
> I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
> want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
> later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
> to put their money, I think.
>

This used to be my pet project for a while. My first edit to strategy wiki
was about an endowment fund[1], I don't think there was anything on the
subject before that one. Stu and Eugene's edit on the subject came later,
so I'll still take some credit for this one. ;)

I brought this up in person to a few board members, and to the foundation
staff on another mailing list an year or two ago. I believe they are all
aware of the idea and its implication. Eugene suggested at some point that
we should come back to this discussion later. The answers were always
ambiguous from what I recall.

There seems to be absence of a long term sustainable financial vision for
the foundation, or if there is, it doesn't seem to be public. The majority
of it seems to revolve around retaining x months of operational reserves
and putting all the chips on the annual fundraiser. I always thought that's
not a very mature financial strategy for an organization.

I started discussing this on strategy wiki, etc. and the first thought was
separating the core and non-core activities, and then separating the
funding models. The core activities are relatively stable, the non-core
differentiate a lot more year on year - moving the non-core to a variable
model where the revenue would define spending, and core activities to its
self-contained sustainable model would be an ideal strategy. The
bare-minimum operational cost of hosting, and being online, could be
covered with such a fund easily, leaving the annual fundraiser target to be
a variable each year without any target, which in turn can define the
spending. The correct calculation,as thomas started alluding to would be -
operating expenses + projected growth (year on year) + annual inflation
rate + reserve/contingency. I had a lot more worked out somewhere according
to tax laws and specific interest rates. Either way, the first implication
would be that this would nullify to some extent, the majority of the
urgency the fundraiser raises, the success of the fundraiser would be
irrelevant to the long term existence of the projects.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Wikipedia_Fund
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[MZMcBride]

Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> (Particularly looking at you, Philippe, given your work on
>> both the strategic plan and the licensing vote. Gerard's Law and all.
>>;-)
>
>For the record, I didn't do the licensing vote.  :)  Erik gets all the
>blame credit for that.  :-)

Hah, my bad. For some reason, I was associating it with you in my head. I
thought you did the strategic plan in 2008 and the licensing update in
2009. Meta-Wiki bears you out, though. Maybe I got the licensing update
vote confused with the image filter referendum? Anyway, sorry about that.

>My feeling would be that the obvious first place to start would be the
>Board of Trustees.  I'd probably start by emailing them and asking them
>what they think.  It seems to me, if I were in your shoes (and I'm
>carefully taking no position here, not because I don't have an opinion but
>because I don't have a considered opinion), that the response to that
>would drive the next set of actions.

Well, I think a few of the Board of Trustees members read this mailing
list occasionally. Perhaps they'll chime in. I'd not seen
. Thank you kindly for
that. (Now if only strategy.wikimedia.org were folded back into
meta.wikimedia.org so that I had a chance of finding these pages on my
own)

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Andrew Gray]

On 14 March 2013 17:55, Philippe Beaudette  wrote:


> My feeling would be that the obvious first place to start would be the
> Board of Trustees.  I'd probably start by emailing them and asking them
> what they think.  It seems to me, if I were in your shoes (and I'm
> carefully taking no position here, not because I don't have an opinion but
> because I don't have a considered opinion), that the response to that
> would drive the next set of actions.

Looking at the 2011 candidate questions:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Candidates/Questions/1

SJ: definite yes
Kat: defer decision, but worth considering
Ting: ambivalent

So there's a start ;-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for a year.

How did you come up with that number?

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> (Particularly looking at you, Philippe, given your work on
> both the strategic plan and the licensing vote. Gerard's Law and all. ;-)
>

For the record, I didn't do the licensing vote.  :)  Erik gets all the
blame credit for that.  :-)

My feeling would be that the obvious first place to start would be the
Board of Trustees.  I'd probably start by emailing them and asking them
what they think.  It seems to me, if I were in your shoes (and I'm
carefully taking no position here, not because I don't have an opinion but
because I don't have a considered opinion), that the response to that
would drive the next set of actions.

pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[MZMcBride]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>An endowment is a long-term thing. Current low interest rates probably
>won't last more than a few years. Even so, it would need to be a very
>large fund, yes. If you can get a return of, say, 2% over inflation
>(you can get more than that if you're willing to take some risks) you
>need 50 times your annual budget to fund it all from the endowment.
>That would be something like $2 billion for the WMF. It doesn't need
>to fund the entire budget to be useful, though, and can be built up
>over time (eg. from legacies in people's wills).

Exactly.

As I understand it, the yearly annual Wikimedia Foundation budget is about
$35 million. It costs about $2.5 million to keep the sites operational for
a year. So even if an endowment weren't large enough to cover well over
130 full-time staff members, it could still keep us up and running for a
while. Assuming $2.5 million, that's about $125 million, using your
multiply by 50 formula. That's still a shitload of money, but it's much
less than $2 billion. :-)

I think we need to decide, as a community, whether this is something we
want. If it is, we should set up an endowment fund sooner rather than
later, so that people willing to donate to such an endowment have a place
to put their money, I think.

The question then becomes: how do we decide on this? A community
vote (similar to the licensing update vote) followed by a Board
resolution? A Wikimedia-wide requests for comment? Just a Board resolution
(assuming a majority of members support this, of course)?

Thoughts on how to figure out what the next step here is would be really
appreciated. (Particularly looking at you, Philippe, given your work on
both the strategic plan and the licensing vote. Gerard's Law and all. ;-)

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Nederland February activity report

[Sandra Rientjes]

The February activity report by Wikimedia Nederland is now available on
meta:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/WIkimedia_Nederland/201302
It is also included as text below.


WMNL February report


Technical projects

· The closing conference of the EU-funded CoSyne
project in which WMNL was a partner took place in Amsterdam on February 1.
WMNL Board Member Frans Grijzenhout presented the results of the testing
carried out by WMNL volunteers. CoSyne produced a tool for the
synchronisation and translation of wiki-pages.

·  A team of enthousiastic volunteers and staff are
making good progress in preparing for the International Hackathon 2013,
which will take place in Amsterdam, May 23 - 26. For the first time,
participants will be able to stay overnight at the venue where they will be
working during the day.



Content projects

· Further steps were made towards integrating the
Dictionary of Hebrew and Jiddish words in use in the Dutch language into
Wiktionary.  This dictionary was compiled by the Foundation Sofeer, who
want to make their work permanently available to a larger audience.

· On February 15. Wikimedia volunteers went on a
photo-excursion to the city of Arnhem to gather images of war-monuments.
This is part of a wider discussion between WMNL and the Netherlands
National Committee 4 and 5 May (responsible for official commemoration of
World War II) about cooperation.

· WMNL staff and board members are working with the
international coordination group of Wiki Loves Monuments to ensure funding
for activities in 2013.



Board and Staff

· Sebastiaan ter Burg started work as GLAM
project-coordinator on February 15

· Via the WMNL newsletter and other media a call went
out for candidate Board Members.



PR

· A new issue of the WMNL Newsletter was published

· Work is in progress on redesigning the WMNL website

· Research bureau Motivaction carried out surveys among
WMNL members and Dutch Wikipedia editors to assess to what extent they are
aware of the work done by WMNL, their expectations/ideas concerning future
activities, and their motivation to contribute to Wikimedia projects.  At
the same time a survey was done among a general public focusgroup to assess
whether they know and use Wikipedia, their potential willingness to
contribute and their insight into the way Wikipedia is maintained and
funded.  Results will be available mid March.



Other meetings

· WMNL Director Sandra Rientjes and GLAM coordinator
Sebastiaan ter Burg met with staff of the European Centre for Nature
Conservation (Tilburg, the Netherlands) to discuss how they could
contribute images concerning biodiversity and protected areas to Wikimedia
Commons and how they could encourage their constituency to become active as
Wikipedia editors.

· Board Member Sandra Fauconnier and director Sandra
Rientjes had a meeting with the Director of the Netherlands National
Archives to discuss the possibility of a Wikipedian in Residence, and other
forms of cooperation.



Upcoming

· The Algemene Ledenvergadering (General Assembly) of
WMNL will take place on Saturday, March 23. On the agenda will be the
annual report and accounts 2012, as well as the election of Board Members

· Workshops on including recorded sound in Wikimedia
Commons and Wikipedia - March 30 & April 20

· European Fashion Editathon. May 13.

*
*
Sandra Rientjes
Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland

tel. (+31) (0)6  31786379

*Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD  Utrecht Utrecht
___
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Mathieu Stumpf]

Le 2013-03-14 12:12, Andrew Gray a écrit :
On 14 March 2013 08:09, Manuel Schneider 
 wrote:



thanks for collecting these links, they are interesting. Anyway, I
didn't fully understand the idea behind the page, especially as a
non-native speaker I have problems to come up with a proper 
translation
/ understanding of "Endowment". I understand it as "what WM(F) owns" 
and

it may refer to the "right" WM(F) expects to have on getting / using
their donated money or may refer to the reserves WMF is currently 
building.


Can you explain this a bit better for people like me, please? Maybe
right on that Meta page would be good, so others can read it as 
well.


Hi Manuel,

The basic idea of an endowment is that it's a large sum of money
collected to "set up" a charity - it then uses the income from
investing this money to cover some or all of its operating costs,
rather than just spending it over a long period of time. The Wellcome
Trust is a pretty good high-profile example; it has a capital
endowment of around fifteen billion pounds, and spends about six
hundred million (4%) a year.

(In the US context, they're very common for universities, but this is
less so in Europe; here it's more "traditional charities")

I've given a quick outline on the meta page. Building up an endowment
sufficient to run WMF would be tricky, of course :-)


Let's hope it won't turn up into a "charity business" like the Gates 
Foundation whose investisements are benefits driven, with no 
consideration to ethical problems.


--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Manuel,

In my professional experience with endowments (which isn't that extensive,
I must confess), the investments are typically extremely conservative and
designed to give a steady and reliable long term flow of dividends, rather
than shooting for quick capital gains through risky investments in shares
or property.  Things like debentures, government bonds, fixed interest
deposits, and so forth.  Even in these current times of financial
uncertainty, a competent investment adviser should be able to construct an
investment portfolio that provides a modest return with little risk.

Regards,
Craig Franklin

Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:00:21 +0100
> From: Manuel Schneider 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment
> Message-ID: <5141bbd5.8050...@wikimedia.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Thanks Andrew and Philippe for your explanation and links.
>
> So that is a plan to build a reserve of funds that is so big that the
> operation can be funded by the capital's gain - interest, dividends...
>
> Sounds interesting, even though the endowment must be huge to cover our
> yearly budgets. Another problem is that it is currently very hard to
> find an interesting investment with low risks. Interest rates have been
> reduced by the major central banks in order to overcome the global
> recession, many formerly safe and interesting investments became risky
> and those who are still safe partly have even negative interest rates
> (eg. german state bonds).
>
>
> /Manuel
> --
> Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Thomas Dalton]

On 14 March 2013 13:00, Manuel Schneider  wrote:
> Thanks Andrew and Philippe for your explanation and links.
>
> So that is a plan to build a reserve of funds that is so big that the
> operation can be funded by the capital's gain - interest, dividends...

Yes, although "reserve" generally refers to money kept in case
something goes wrong. An endowment would be a separate fund
specifically raised for that purpose.

> Sounds interesting, even though the endowment must be huge to cover our
> yearly budgets. Another problem is that it is currently very hard to
> find an interesting investment with low risks. Interest rates have been
> reduced by the major central banks in order to overcome the global
> recession, many formerly safe and interesting investments became risky
> and those who are still safe partly have even negative interest rates
> (eg. german state bonds).

An endowment is a long-term thing. Current low interest rates probably
won't last more than a few years. Even so, it would need to be a very
large fund, yes. If you can get a return of, say, 2% over inflation
(you can get more than that if you're willing to take some risks) you
need 50 times your annual budget to fund it all from the endowment.
That would be something like $2 billion for the WMF. It doesn't need
to fund the entire budget to be useful, though, and can be built up
over time (eg. from legacies in people's wills).

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Manuel Schneider]

Thanks Andrew and Philippe for your explanation and links.

So that is a plan to build a reserve of funds that is so big that the
operation can be funded by the capital's gain - interest, dividends...

Sounds interesting, even though the endowment must be huge to cover our
yearly budgets. Another problem is that it is currently very hard to
find an interesting investment with low risks. Interest rates have been
reduced by the major central banks in order to overcome the global
recession, many formerly safe and interesting investments became risky
and those who are still safe partly have even negative interest rates
(eg. german state bonds).


/Manuel
-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Philippe Beaudette]

See also: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment



___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> On 14 March 2013 08:09, Manuel Schneider 
> wrote:
>
> > thanks for collecting these links, they are interesting. Anyway, I
> > didn't fully understand the idea behind the page, especially as a
> > non-native speaker I have problems to come up with a proper translation
> > / understanding of "Endowment". I understand it as "what WM(F) owns" and
> > it may refer to the "right" WM(F) expects to have on getting / using
> > their donated money or may refer to the reserves WMF is currently
> building.
> >
> > Can you explain this a bit better for people like me, please? Maybe
> > right on that Meta page would be good, so others can read it as well.
>
> Hi Manuel,
>
> The basic idea of an endowment is that it's a large sum of money
> collected to "set up" a charity - it then uses the income from
> investing this money to cover some or all of its operating costs,
> rather than just spending it over a long period of time. The Wellcome
> Trust is a pretty good high-profile example; it has a capital
> endowment of around fifteen billion pounds, and spends about six
> hundred million (4%) a year.
>
> (In the US context, they're very common for universities, but this is
> less so in Europe; here it's more "traditional charities")
>
> I've given a quick outline on the meta page. Building up an endowment
> sufficient to run WMF would be tricky, of course :-)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Andrew Gray]

On 14 March 2013 08:09, Manuel Schneider  wrote:

> thanks for collecting these links, they are interesting. Anyway, I
> didn't fully understand the idea behind the page, especially as a
> non-native speaker I have problems to come up with a proper translation
> / understanding of "Endowment". I understand it as "what WM(F) owns" and
> it may refer to the "right" WM(F) expects to have on getting / using
> their donated money or may refer to the reserves WMF is currently building.
>
> Can you explain this a bit better for people like me, please? Maybe
> right on that Meta page would be good, so others can read it as well.

Hi Manuel,

The basic idea of an endowment is that it's a large sum of money
collected to "set up" a charity - it then uses the income from
investing this money to cover some or all of its operating costs,
rather than just spending it over a long period of time. The Wellcome
Trust is a pretty good high-profile example; it has a capital
endowment of around fifteen billion pounds, and spends about six
hundred million (4%) a year.

(In the US context, they're very common for universities, but this is
less so in Europe; here it's more "traditional charities")

I've given a quick outline on the meta page. Building up an endowment
sufficient to run WMF would be tricky, of course :-)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

[Manuel Schneider]

Hi,

Am 14.03.2013 06:48, schrieb MZMcBride:
> I've started collecting notes about a possible Wikimedia or Wikimedia
> Foundation endowment here: .

thanks for collecting these links, they are interesting. Anyway, I
didn't fully understand the idea behind the page, especially as a
non-native speaker I have problems to come up with a proper translation
/ understanding of "Endowment". I understand it as "what WM(F) owns" and
it may refer to the "right" WM(F) expects to have on getting / using
their donated money or may refer to the reserves WMF is currently building.

Can you explain this a bit better for people like me, please? Maybe
right on that Meta page would be good, so others can read it as well.

Thank you,


Manuel

-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Lua scripting enabled today on all wikis

[Mathieu Stumpf]

Le 2013-03-13 19:38, Guillaume Paumier a écrit :

Greetings,

As you might have seen on the Wikimedia tech

blog(article
included below) or the tech
ambassadors

list,
a new functionality called "Lua" is being enabled on all Wikimedia 
sites

today.


That's so great, thank you! I know there are plenty of templates that 
need it. For example I was waiting for it to write one which generate 
wiktionnaire articles for number, so you can go to 
https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/15687435, and get a description of how 
you prononce it in (hopefuly) each wiktionnaire covered language, plus 
some description.


Thank you to bring us this tool. :)

Kind regards,
mathieu



Lua  is a scripting language
that enables Wikimedia editors to write faster and more powerful 
MediaWiki

templates.

If you have questions about how to convert existing templates to Lua 
(or
how to create new ones), we'll be holding two support sessions on IRC 
next

week: one on

Wednesday(for
Oceania, Asia & America) and one
on

Friday(for
Europe, Africa & America); see m:IRC
office hours  for
details. If you can't make it, you can also get help at mw:Talk:Lua
scripting .

If you'd like to learn about this kind of events earlier in advance,
consider becoming a Tech
ambassadorby
subscribing to the mailing
list 
.



=

New Lua templates bring faster, more flexible pages to your

wiki
Posted by Sumana Harihareswara
on March 11th, 2013

Starting Wednesday, March 13th, you’ll be able to make wiki pages 
even more

useful, no matter what language you speak: we’re adding
Luaas a
templating language. This will make it easier for you to create and
change infoboxes, tables, and other useful MediaWiki templates. We’ve
already started to deploy
Scribunto(the
MediaWiki extension that enables this); it’s on several of the sites,
including
English Wikipedia , 
right now.


You’ll find this useful for performing more complex tasks for which
templates are too complex or slow *—* common examples include numeric
computations, string manipulation and parsing, and decision trees. 
Even if
you don’t write templates, you’ll enjoy seeing pages load faster and 
with

more interesting ways to present information.
Background

MediaWiki developers introduced templates and parser

functionsyears
ago to allow end-users of MediaWiki to replicate content easily and
build tools using basic logic. Along the way, we found that we were 
turning
wikitext into a limited programming language. Complex templates have 
caused
performance issues and bottlenecks, and it’s difficult for users to 
write

and understand templates. Therefore, the Lua scripting
projectaims to make it
possible for MediaWiki end-users to use a proper scripting
language that will be more powerful and efficient than ad-hoc, parser
functions-based logic. The example of Lua’s use in World of
Warcraftis promising; even novices with 
no

programming experience have been able to
make large changes to their graphical experiences by quickly learning 
some

Lua.
Lua on your wiki

As of March 13th, you’ll be able to use Lua on your home wiki (if 
it’s not
already enabled). Lua code can be embedded into wiki templates by 
employing

the {{#invoke:}} parser function provided by the Scribunto MediaWiki
extension. The Lua source code is stored in pages called modules 
(e.g.,

Module:Bananas ). These
individual modules are then invoked on template pages. The example:
Template:Lua
hello world  
uses
the code {{#invoke:Bananas|hello}} to print the text “Hello, world!”. 
So,
if you start seeing edits in the Module namespace, that’s what’s 
going on.

Getting started

Check out the basic “hello, world!”

instructions,
then look at Brad Jorsch’s short

presentation