Erik Moeller, 17/04/2014 19:21:
Yes, this is part of the reason why I'm considering a donation to them
- they're definitely in start-up mode, and we want them to survive.
We can continue to handle these kinds of gifts as a very rare,
discretionary thing for now (and I may want to move forward
I can't recall the details of the discussion, but I think the suggestion
was made for these grants to go through GAC in the future. I still think
that makes sense, if GAC has the technical knoweledge to make informed
decisions about these kinds of grants.
Thanks,
Pine
On Sep 23, 2014 12:09 AM,
Yes I agree, but this means that MariaDB must be financed because it's
strategical.
Financing MariaDB would be possible also to keep it open/free and to
assure that Mediawiki runs in an open software.
But I am answering to the generic question sponsorship/donations to other
organizations saying
just to make the broad support one voice broader, i agree that supporting
the ecosystem as sj called is vital. i also like the term give back as
wikipedia would not be the same without this ecosystem.
rupert
rupert
Am 23.09.2014 11:42 schrieb Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014
Hello,
I began to write a new thread about spam control, then remembered this
recent one on a similar topic.
Integrating spam control more deeply into all of our tools and
services - including particularly MediaWiki - is important for many
audiences.
Is there an overview of current anti-spam
2014-04-18 0:46 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
* There is a specific need, a conference we could support, a developer
event or something we could help out with. There is a clear goal, and it is
one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less
messy.
Hi Cristian,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Cristian Consonni
kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-18 0:46 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
* There is a specific need, a conference we could support, a developer
event or something we could help out with. There is a clear
+1
Yann
2014-04-16 2:02 GMT+05:30 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
On 15 April 2014 21:08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a difficult question. I'm in favour in general, and I think it's a
good idea to support projects that we use and need the money. The problem I
2014-04-16 2:10 GMT+05:30 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
(...)
2) We need a free toolchain that we can build upon and digitize /
gather / curate / format / publish knowledge with. There are
currently major gaps in this toolchain -- core projects and
collaborations rely on non-free tools or
I think Steven's interpretation here is pretty sound - yes, it's
legitimate for us to do this, but we should be a bit cautious :-)
Infrastructure tools yes, GIMP probably not.
Andrew.
On 17 April 2014 04:10, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM,
On 17 April 2014 17:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I think Steven's interpretation here is pretty sound - yes, it's
legitimate for us to do this, but we should be a bit cautious :-)
Infrastructure tools yes, GIMP probably not.
Inkscape, however ... we have such a huge
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems like we really depend on MariaDB having strong support in the future,
as an open source infrastructure requirement. We moved to Maria in part
because Oracle is a terrible terrible steward of open source,
This would be an interesting discussion to have in the next movement
strategy process.
I can see the attraction of doing this, but much better to think about it
alongside questions like what are our collective goals, how much money
do we want to have and the like.
Regards,
Chris
On 15 Apr 2014
There are two kind of situations I can imagine where donating money without
a grant request would make sense to me (aside from facilitating a
fundraising):
* There is a specific need, a conference we could support, a developer
event or something we could help out with. There is a clear goal, and
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
Within Wikimedia CH, this is an idea that we have discussed a few years
ago: how can we support software and other communities that our
community depends on, while avoiding to just give away money. In the
end, we
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Erik, there are cases in which this is clearly the right thing
for us to do.
1) An annual 'supporting the ecosystem' program, that channels grants
and visibility to important partners, seems interesting. Could this
I would love to see the Foundation support archive.org and
webcitation.org. I have seen dozens of community members express hopes
for Foundation monetary support of both continued survival and faster
response time for both. But I am not aware of any acknowledgement from
the Foundation other than
I find myself in furious agreement with Charles here. For years the
Foundation has been insisting (and quite rightly so) that allied
organisations consider only the stark benefit-per-dollar that they can
extract for each piece of movement funding, as measured by KPIs and
metrics. Handing out
On 16 April 2014 13:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Grants directed to the development specific functionality that Wikimedia
can use and which can later be included in other project's core offerings?
Sure, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But I think that
I don't think the message of having a bit of discipline in your budget and
making value-for-money a prime consideration is at all a bad thing for
chapters to be doing. The way that the message was hammered in was at
times arrogant, aggressive, or plain out insulting, but the message itself
was a
Hi,
I would like to point out a couple of points:
* WMF or other affiliates can (and should, IMHO) look out for
sponsorships towards other organisations worth supporting when there
is the occasion, this is IMHO a legitimate activity (and investment)
as any other, i.e. the sponsor gains the
Many of the chapters are still in startup mode - a challenge that the WMF
should avoid when targeting organizations for sponsorship or donation.
Perhaps more saliently, OSM, MariaDB, Internet Archive etc. are not
representing the Wikimedia movement, aren't using Wikimedia trademarks,
and
Le 16/04/2014 14:13, Craig Franklin a écrit :
I don't think the message of having a bit of discipline in your budget and
making value-for-money a prime consideration is at all a bad thing for
chapters to be doing. The way that the message was hammered in was at
times arrogant, aggressive, or
On 04/15/2014 05:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah, one of the first things to do is to talk to these partner
organisations (because they are partner organisations) and ask what
would actually be helpful, rather than helpy
One thing that Erik has not mentionned (probably because it simply
At least about non-profit software organizations that we rely on (aka
upstream projects), I agree with the idea of having a strategy of support
and the sensible resources to support it.
The easy part is to explain the principle and the strategy to our editors
and donors. We got here because these
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
I would love to see the Foundation support archive.org and
webcitation.org. I have seen dozens of community members express hopes
for Foundation monetary support of both continued survival and faster
response time for
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the software side, we have Ubuntu Linux (itself highly indebted to
Debian) / Apache / MariaDB / PHP / Varnish / ElasticSearch / memcached
/ Puppet / OpenStack / various libraries and many other dependencies [2],
Hi folks,
I'd be interested in hearing broader community opinions about the
extent to which WMF should sponsor non-profits purely to support work
that Wikimedia benefits from, even if it's not directed towards a
specific goal established in a grant agreement.
This comes up from time to time. One
Hi Erik,
I'd say 'maybe'. I think this sort of work is worth supporting in general, but
the question should be whether providing the support would improve the content
and/or provision of the Wikimedia projects. I'd like to see a good
community-driven process that would determine whether such
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
I'd be interested in hearing broader community opinions about the
extent to which WMF should sponsor non-profits purely to support work
that Wikimedia benefits from, even if it's not directed towards a
On 15 April 2014 21:08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a difficult question. I'm in favour in general, and I think it's a
good idea to support projects that we use and need the money. The problem I
have with it (and that is absent in your points above) is in how far we
There is a reason if the last precedent is in 2006. Search your mail
archives for later discussions on FreeNode.
Erik Moeller, 15/04/2014 21:50:
MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor,
Do they only accept unrestricted donations? If not, they could consider
that the WMF grants
In general, I do think Wikimedia should do this.
Briefly:
Wikimedia is in an extremely fortunate position: it can raise all the
money it needs from many small donors, and can expect to be able to do
so continually into the future. This is partially because it is a
great thing that many people
Hello Erik, there are cases in which this is clearly the right thing
for us to do.
1) An annual 'supporting the ecosystem' program, that channels grants
and visibility to important partners, seems interesting. Could this
be implemented as a targeted grants program? Or just targeted
outreach
TL;DR: Yes, I think we should be pro-actively putting significant
financial resources into the open source ecosystems we rely on.
Thanks Erik! This is a great discussion to have.
As I see it, we have a whole lot of potential fundraising revenue that
we leave unraised, simply because WMF doesn't
Just mentioning it because David mentioned the Internet Archive. The IA is
actively interested in collaborating with Wikimedia, and I think they have
a lot to offer us - the reason nothing has come to fruition yet has been a
combination of funding constraints and time constraints for everyone
I agree with Mike Peel on 'maybe' - I think donations from the WMF to
non-profit organizations could be great and very useful, but that the WMF
should
1) ensure that the donations have a substantial impact (i.e. not $500 to
ICRC, where WMF funds would get lost in a sea of other contributors),
2)
On 15 April 2014 21:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd also personally support in-kind donations (i.e. dedicate an FTE or
portion of an FTE to integration work that benefits a non-profit, or
implements a feature that is requested for a specific platform, etc.).
Training or consultation
In a period where all the fund dissemination of the movement is driven by the
question what's the impact on wikimedia project and a community-driven
process, I would suggest that any redistribution of the funds done by the WMF
would follow the same rules.
Charles
Le 15 avr. 2014 à 21:57,
Hi Erik,
I personally like all these ideas a lot (and I also agree with most of
the comments that have been made so far); in particular, the fact that
you mention both the server and the client side (as well as other
communities) is very appealing to me.
Within Wikimedia CH, this is an idea that
40 matches
Mail list logo
