Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 with MariaDB because a) they asked, b) they need support, c) we need them to survive), What happened in the end? Nemo and focusing (per other comments in this thread) more on how we can build systems around grants for tools that directly support content contributors. Erik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: What happened in the end? We made a $10K donation to the MariaDB Foundation in May, and they generously elevated us to Member status for a year (normally at $50K). https://mariadb.org/en/supporters/ https://mariadb.org/en/foundation/ Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 that the magic word open doesn't suppose the eligibility because there are some concepts which are functional to the open content (for instance the open data helps to improve the open content) and something which is important but less functional. What happens for the affiliated groups should happen also for the external organizations indicating some parameters of eligibility. Regards On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, How do our users have the freedom to choose their own tools ? When they use MediaWiki, they are supported. MediaWiki is dependent on a stack of software that is open / free. This stack is essential and, MariaDB is part of it. Then there is free / open software used in extensions and stuff. There is software used for the management of our software, the WMF administration. It can be argued that software used on Labs may qualify but that is it. All other software is not supported by the WMF and why should it. Users may choose whatever to produce their own open content but that is far removed from what we do and might support. Yes we can produce another list. But what is the point; it does only list what we could support not what we will support nor does it provide any entitlement. Thanks, GerardM On 23 September 2014 12:01, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, but the message is that to do open content is not mandatory to have open software. Everyone can release open content generated/elaborated with his own software. And viceversa, who uses open software can use it also for close content. It's the same distinction that legally exists between software and content/data. What I have understood is that there is a larger vision of open knowledge and a closer one. The same Wikipedia's articles are not clear. Personally I consider the open knowledge derivative of the open software and a subset of the open software, but I respect the vision of the other party. For this reason I am saying that should be defined who can receive financial support. The importance of free software is not excluded (and I said that it's strategical), but the users have the freedom to choose their own tools and what can match their knowledge/expertise. Regards On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The question is that open software and open knowledge are not so close as open knowledge and open data and open content, for instance. Maybe I'm misreading the not so close part, but just in case: Free software is a subset of free knowledge, and a very important one for Wikimedia since all our content is digital. Free knowledge run by non-free software is captive, as many open initiatives dismissing this point have learned the hard way. We can't take for granted that free software will be always available and maintained either. This is why we need to take the collaboration with free software initiatives vital to us as seriously as the collaboration with other open knowledge initiatives. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 at 10:02 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: The question is that open software and open knowledge are not so close as open knowledge and open data and open content, for instance. Maybe I'm misreading the not so close part, but just in case: Free software is a subset of free knowledge, and a very important one for Wikimedia since all our content is digital. Free knowledge run by non-free software is captive, as many open initiatives dismissing this point have learned the hard way. We can't take for granted that free software will be always available and maintained either. This is why we need to take the collaboration with free software initiatives vital to us as seriously as the collaboration with other open knowledge initiatives. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 tech (for MW in particular, but related: for our preferred Ticket-handling and Mailing-list toolchains), and projected roadmaps? Comparisons with the best known proprietary tools, to see what remains to be built? This strikes me as something that we and the FSF and other groups could collaborate on. Sam On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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 goal, and it is one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less messy. [OT] As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever! Cristian p.s.: pay gold is a figure of speech, but I would definitely personally support such a project! yeah, as moderator on some other lists, I share your feelings about spam. Note though that SpamAssassin is already running in our Mailman installation [...] The current blocker is that it is generating some false positives, i.e. someone would need to spend time to tweak and test the settings: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56525 So it looks we have to some of our own homework first here. But if it turns out that there are limitations in SpamAssassin which we could help them overcome to make it more effective for our purposes, that might be a very good use of donor money. (As an example concerning your suggestion for a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once: I'm not sure if SpamAssassin is currently integrated with Mailman in a way that enables it to learn from list moderator actions immediately. See e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpamAssassin#Bayesian_filtering http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/mailman-spamassassin/ -- The Future ) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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. [OT] As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever! Cristian p.s.: pay gold is a figure of speech, but I would definitely personally support such a project! [OT] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 goal, and it is one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less messy. [OT] As a Wikimedia list moderator (just a couple, the Wiki Loves Monuments ones) I am ready to pay gold for anything that would reduce the amount of spam in the queues be it a better spam filter, a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once, magic or whatever! Cristian p.s.: pay gold is a figure of speech, but I would definitely personally support such a project! yeah, as moderator on some other lists, I share your feelings about spam. Note though that SpamAssassin is already running in our Mailman installation and generating spam scores for mailing list messages, just not actively discarding them based on these scores. A few weeks ago, Daniel from Ops wrote up some documentation on how you can activate that for your list as a list admin: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lists.wikimedia.org#Fighting_spam_in_mailman The current blocker is that it is generating some false positives, i.e. someone would need to spend time to tweak and test the settings: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56525 So it looks we have to some of our own homework first here. But if it turns out that there are limitations in SpamAssassin which we could help them overcome to make it more effective for our purposes, that might be a very good use of donor money. (As an example concerning your suggestion for a system to delete spam from multiple lists at once: I'm not sure if SpamAssassin is currently integrated with Mailman in a way that enables it to learn from list moderator actions immediately. See e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpamAssassin#Bayesian_filtering http://www.jamesh.id.au/articles/mailman-spamassassin/ -- The Future ) [OT] -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
+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 have with it (and that is absent in your points above) is in how far we have the moral right to spend the money donors gave us on other projects. In the case of CC, OSM or Freenode, we prevail upon these organisations' resources considerably; it's akin to outsourcing infrastructure. We use their stuff to a degree that I think it's an obviously right thing, and defensible as such, to support them financially. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 non-free hosted service. Every time we use or work to interoperate with such tools and services, we should also support replacing them with free ones. (That support can include everything from publicity and matchmaking to in-kind support to funds) Free efficient OCR software is a great need for Wikisource and its contributors. That's an important gap in the free toolchain to build a free online library. (...) SJ Regards, Yann ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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, 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. Speaking personally, I think we should consider doing this kind of thing on rare occasions and where there is a critical dependency. There are two questions that I think are relevant: 1). Do they *really *need our help? Organizations like Ubuntu and Puppet are in fact supported by for-profit companies as well as through a FOSS community. There are other examples here, like Redis and Vagrant. They surely do not need our money to survive. However, something like MariaDB might, since they're in fact asking us. 2). Would Wikimedia projects be fine, if these other organizations/products perished? 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, including MySQL. There are other great FOSS databases out there, but switching to something like PostgreSQL or a non-relational database (I troll) would be infinitely more painful. It's in our self-interest as an organization and for the survival of Wikimedia projects that our database engine is a healthy open source product. Products you mentioned which don't pass this test include things like GIMP, Inkscape, and LibreOffice. It feels like it would be wasteful of donor money to support something most of our users don't really depend on/we don't depend on internally at the WMF. We'd essentially be making an investment in these open source products, not ensuring a critical piece of our toolkit survives. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- - 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 proportion of Commons SVGs made in Inkscape that it's been seriously considered at times to use Inkscape on the server as WMF's SVG renderer. Or Yann's suggestion of better OCR. Software gets into grey areas like this. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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, including MySQL. 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 with MariaDB because a) they asked, b) they need support, c) we need them to survive), and focusing (per other comments in this thread) more on how we can build systems around grants for tools that directly support content contributors. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 20:51, 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 it is one-time. We have a clear benefit. For example: helping OTRS to become less messy. * Setting the right example and therefore have an even wider impact when it comes to using free software. I think it is defensible if we agree on a 'software fee' for the software Wikimedia movement organizations are using, and then donate based on the number of employees/servers/computers/whatever running that software. Something you could calculate, and an example that could (and might) be followed as 'the right thing to do' by other organizations. I would not be in favor of 'just donating money' - i think we should be able to explain at all time why we are donating, and why that specific amount. We owe that to our donors, and we owe that to the volunteers whose grants are being rejected/reduced. Best, Lodewijk 2014-04-17 23:39 GMT+02:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com: 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 20:51, 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 supported financially one edition of the Libre Graphics Meeting. That's a great choice! LGM is a fantastic meeting and directly relates to tools that support content contributors in our projects. As an aside, coming back to software, I have noted that the WMF gets gets a special thank you note on the git-annex web page (https://git-annex.branchable.com/thanks/); is it a tool that has been supported financially ? (and, I assume, a tool that the WMF uses regularly) ? As I recall we contracted with Joey (the maintainer) to do some development work that relates to the git-based deployment tooling we use for some services. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 be implemented as a targeted grants program? Or just targeted outreach encouraging groups to apply for existing programs? I wouldn't call it 'giving back' -- that seems to minimize the way in which this is integral to our work. (I see almost no difference, from the perspective of our mission, between supporting OSM or Wikieducator and supporting Wikiversity). However we should be clear that this is where some of our resources go, and update related messaging; or raise funds specifically for those goals with their own campaigns. Yeah - it seems pretty complex to get right, and I don't want to shovel work onto our fundraising team's very full plate, or distract from our main fundraising efforts. There are some interesting models to study at least. I like what the Freedom of the Press Foundation is doing with its flexible, permanent fundraiser for projects related to anonymity/privacy, which seems to be inspired by the Humble Bundle UI: https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/ 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 non-free hosted service. Every time we use or work to interoperate with such tools and services, we should also support replacing them with free ones. (That support can include everything from publicity and matchmaking to in-kind support to funds) So we should be supporting, in some fashion: free formats; free fonts; free tools for annotation, real-time text collaboration, spreadsheet editing, media editing; the ecosystem needed to support free media codecs. We should be framing and broadcasting to the FK ans FOSS world where the biggest gaps lie and what needs to be done. I agree, and this seems more straightforward to integrate with existing grantmaking practices. In fact we've seen a few toolchain related grant applicants lately, such as the ShareMap proposal (which was turned down, in significant part because it's very Flash-based): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/ShareMap But the scope of the project is not such that, if I was (say) a contributor to Blender, I would apply for funding through it. Focusing on grantmaking that directly supports content contributors might be a good area to hone in on, while deferring the larger sponsorship question for now. 3) Many projects that we rely on run on a very small budget, but may need specific skills. I would separate how we think about supporting this sort of work, from how we think about supporting larger projects such as CC and OSM. Sure - we do in fact do a lot of the non-financial stuff (upstream code contributions, legal or other advice, providing space for meetups, etc.). Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 Jimmy saying that he hoped someone would help them apply for grants. Did anyone in the Foundation ever do that? And in line with my hopes that the Foundation will some day start acting in direct support of the volunteer community, I would love to see some direct financial support for e.g. paywatch.org and healthcare-now.org. Systematic polling of the community is the correct way to decide the allocation of scarce resources. We need more than the goals that were set back when the community was growing apparently exponentially. We need something that proves to editors, would-be editors, and former editors that the Foundation is trying to improve their lives. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 money to fellow travellers, no matter how well intentioned, and expecting only warm fuzzies in return seems to be to fly in the face of that. 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 handing out unrestricted grants and giving back just because we're nice people and they're nice people strays too far from the Foundation's mission and contradicts the message about budgetary discipline that has been hammered into chapters over the years. Cheers, Craig On 16 April 2014 07:34, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.comwrote: 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, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net a écrit : 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 sponsorship would be helpful or whether it would be a waste of money. Thanks, Mike On 15 Apr 2014, at 20:50, 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 handing out unrestricted grants and giving back just because we're nice people and they're nice people strays too far from the Foundation's mission and contradicts the message about budgetary discipline that has been hammered into chapters over the years. The solution would then appear to be to treat the chapters better, rather than others worse. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 good one. Large cash gifts made to third parties, in my view, rarely represent good value-for-money. All I ask for is a little consistency. I would also posit that if WMF donors wanted to donate to a worthy project like MariaDB, they'd donate to that rather than to the Foundation. I don't think targeted grants to reach some particular goal that can be shown to directly benefit the Foundation are at all a problem, and if we're going to walk down this road that's probably the better road to take, rather than acting as a charitable middleman, redistributing donor funds to other nonprofits that don't share our particular mission. Cheers, Craig On 16 April 2014 22:05, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 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 handing out unrestricted grants and giving back just because we're nice people and they're nice people strays too far from the Foundation's mission and contradicts the message about budgetary discipline that has been hammered into chapters over the years. The solution would then appear to be to treat the chapters better, rather than others worse. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 visibility ensuing the sponsorship. The evaluation of the worthiness and impact of these activities is then left to the single entities, as for any other activity. * we could start thinking if these entities could become WMF affiliates and go after the processes the other affiliates go through for funding their own projects (i.e. GAC) or more generally all of their activity (e.g. FDC). I have been thinking about whether the processes we currently use are usable also for the rest of the free/open knowledge in the world. Alternatively, we could set-up a different process, if needed. In general, my point would be that it is up for other organisations to come and seek funding instead of Wikimedia Foundation proposing to support them. Does this make sense? On a completely different level on this discussion, I would like to point out that Wikimedia Italia has started the process to become local chapter of the OpenStreetMap Foundation in Italy. Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 presumably would receive a much, much smaller portion of their total operating revenue from the WMF than chapters typically expect. All good reasons why the WMF should not treat them in the same manner as Wikimedia chapters, user groups or thematic orgs. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 plain out insulting, but the message itself was a good one. It actually appears that the message, let aside its form, had other goals than the discipline in budget. This even peculiarly come across the Ting Chen message, when he says: The reason why I was worried was the funding of WMF, not that of the chapters. These messages were obviously an effort to curtail chapter growth (quoting https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Board_meetings/2013-11-24/FAQ which however deny it). It certainly brought some value-for-money consideration at the cost of huge volunteer time and efforts to fulfil the requirement as well as impeded projects and activities development. Large cash gifts made to third parties, in my view, rarely represent good value-for-money. All I ask for is a little consistency. I would also posit that if WMF donors wanted to donate to a worthy project like MariaDB, they'd donate to that rather than to the Foundation. This point was addressed above: other organizations [infrastructural software] have much less visibility. I actually didn't know anything about MariaDB before today... Le 16/04/2014 14:05, David Gerard a écrit : The solution would then appear to be to treat the chapters better, rather than others worse. +++ !! -- Mathias Damour 49 rue Carnot F-74000 Annecy 00 33 (0)4 57 09 10 56 00 33 (0)6 27 13 65 51 mathias.dam...@laposte.net https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Astirmays ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 slipped his mind) is that this is exactly what we have done for Freenode in the past six or seven months. They were aching for a couple extra nodes, and we are currently hosting one for them. This was a one-off, and is not very onerous for us to provide (we already have the hardware and infrastructure; the only ongoing cost is bandwidth and a little bit of ops time). I suppose it can be seen as a contribution of the ops team itself -- we were pretty much unanimous that if a way could be found to help them in a way that would not impact production (it has), then contributing to a project we rely upon daily was a no brainer. FWIW, I agree with the general principle as well, and I don't even see it as a objective creep: the maintenance of the ecosystem of tools and infrastructure which makes Wikipedia possible is a necessary part of our mission. It does little help to have all the data if there doesn't exist an infrastructure of open source software to make running the projects possible. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 projects were also here to support us. If they fail, we will suffer. What is more complex is to have a software strategy mapping our current and future needs to our own development resources and to the upstream projects expected to provide the rest. Some upstream projects will do well with or without us, while others will rely more heavily on us. Different projects will have different needs at different points of time. Being a supporter in the free software community is not very different to being an editor in Wikipedia. Good contributors don't focus in just giving money, just like good editors don't focus in just adding text. Our help is more useful when we contribute with our various interests and tools, filling different types of gaps that others have left. On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. Planned budget and community process are important elements in this equation, but a broader strategy would need to be in place first. In my opinion, such strategy would focus mainly on long term relationships based on actual exchanges and collaboration before money gets into the picture. Leaving a % of the budget for opportunistic support to non-planned actions is very good, but only when the basic collaborations are in place. Otherwise we risk to run into the known problem of supporting many activities and many organizations at a remarkable cost, without seeing clear benefits after a couple of exercises. I would also start using and contributing improvements to the tools and processes we currently have, like the family of Grants tools, rather than creating new ones for this purpose. Just like featured articles start with a single sentence, we could also start with a very simple iteration, already in the 2014-15 plan, keeping what we have done (e.g. the Freenode collaboration) and adding a bit more. The same goes for the software strategy, we don't need to have a 5-year plan to start nailing down some obvious conclusions that will help us nominate a first list of partners to support formally. In fact this is one of the reasons why the Engineering Community team has the short term goal of documenting an accurate list of upstream projects: [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 both. But I am not aware of any acknowledgement from the Foundation other than Jimmy saying that he hoped someone would help them apply for grants. Did anyone in the Foundation ever do that? Yes: re Webcite, at the specific request of community members, I responded on the [[m:Webcite]] discussion and commented on the prospects of a grant (making clear that the Webcite operator may apply for one). A grant application was never submitted, and it appears the immediate need has been addressed in some other manner. And re the Internet Archive, shortly after the recent fire at the Archive in San Francisco, concerned community members urged us to look into whether the Archive needed help. We did. There was no such need. It seems the Archive is doing okay with its own revenue model and institutional supporters. Asaf -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. Speaking personally, I think we should consider doing this kind of thing on rare occasions and where there is a critical dependency. There are two questions that I think are relevant: 1). Do they *really *need our help? Organizations like Ubuntu and Puppet are in fact supported by for-profit companies as well as through a FOSS community. There are other examples here, like Redis and Vagrant. They surely do not need our money to survive. However, something like MariaDB might, since they're in fact asking us. 2). Would Wikimedia projects be fine, if these other organizations/products perished? 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, including MySQL. There are other great FOSS databases out there, but switching to something like PostgreSQL or a non-relational database (I troll) would be infinitely more painful. It's in our self-interest as an organization and for the survival of Wikimedia projects that our database engine is a healthy open source product. Products you mentioned which don't pass this test include things like GIMP, Inkscape, and LibreOffice. It feels like it would be wasteful of donor money to support something most of our users don't really depend on/we don't depend on internally at the WMF. We'd essentially be making an investment in these open source products, not ensuring a critical piece of our toolkit survives. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 sponsorship would be helpful or whether it would be a waste of money. Thanks, Mike On 15 Apr 2014, at 20:50, 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Hi Erik, 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 have the moral right to spend the money donors gave us on other projects. Transparency to sponsors - especially since we get a lot of small donations - is something I feel strongly about. If this were set up in a way integrated in our fundraising policy (Donate X, allow for Y to be spent on projects we are dependent on for example) I'd be in favour, but I'm uncomfortable with re-gifting some random donors money to Varnish. --Martijn ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 have the moral right to spend the money donors gave us on other projects. In the case of CC, OSM or Freenode, we prevail upon these organisations' resources considerably; it's akin to outsourcing infrastructure. We use their stuff to a degree that I think it's an obviously right thing, and defensible as such, to support them financially. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 are very flexible. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start Most IEG proposals, for instance, seem to propose software development projects (and other contractor work) with wages in the tens thousands dollars. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 value, of course, but it's partially by accident because of the type of thing it is--a public resource that most potential donors visit directly on its website, probably even every day. Part of that fortunate position is because of the work of other organizations which have much less visibility--infrastructural software, which silently and invisibly makes Wikimedia's work possible and means we don't have to spend the resources we do take in reinventing the wheel because they have already done it. The tools that make it possible for us to create, edit, and display multimedia content freely--whose users often download once and then have no other contact with the organization's site or materials. The organizations who are working with us to advance our common goals, but who do so less visibly. Almost none of these have the same ability to raise money as Wikimedia does, even if they were doing so as effectively as possible, and this is especially true if they also wish to minimize their dependence on corporations and foundations with differing goals. But Wikimedia's mission depends on their survival also--we are able to do what we do more effectively because of them, and it seems only right that some of the value we get from them should go back to supporting them. -Kat (Disclaimer: I work for CC now, which has received a donation from Wikimedia since my leaving the board; however, this is an opinion I've held for a long time.) On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 encouraging groups to apply for existing programs? I wouldn't call it 'giving back' -- that seems to minimize the way in which this is integral to our work. (I see almost no difference, from the perspective of our mission, between supporting OSM or Wikieducator and supporting Wikiversity). However we should be clear that this is where some of our resources go, and update related messaging; or raise funds specifically for those goals with their own campaigns. 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 non-free hosted service. Every time we use or work to interoperate with such tools and services, we should also support replacing them with free ones. (That support can include everything from publicity and matchmaking to in-kind support to funds) So we should be supporting, in some fashion: free formats; free fonts; free tools for annotation, real-time text collaboration, spreadsheet editing, media editing; the ecosystem needed to support free media codecs. We should be framing and broadcasting to the FK ans FOSS world where the biggest gaps lie and what needs to be done. And we should be able to point to how and where we are investing in this -- for instance when we get into debates about whether or not to include non-free fonts in our default fontstack; or about how to support people trying to convert and publish media in encumbered formats. 3) Many projects that we rely on run on a very small budget, but may need specific skills. I would separate how we think about supporting this sort of work, from how we think about supporting larger projects such as CC and OSM. SJ On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:50 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 have effective ways of spending it or allocating it within the movement. The fundraising system has become extremely efficient, so we've increasingly shifted toward minimizing reader annoyance instead of increasing raising money. But the annoyance factor of fundraising is so low right now that (to me) it seems wasteful *not* to be raising and distributing more, if it can be done in ways that support our mission (broadly construed). Wikipedia is the most prominent project of the top, public-facing layer of a deep free culture / free software ecosystem. It wouldn't be able to exist without that ecosystem, but because it's in that top layer that directly serves the public, it generates most of the goodwill and donation potential. But much of what donors love and value and want to support about Wikipedia has deeper roots than they realize. I used to be a regular donor to Wikimedia Foundation, but as I've learned more about that deeper ecosystem, I've felt it my responsibility -- because I know how things work beneath that surface layer -- to focus my giving elsewhere in the free software and free culture ecosystem. I would happily donate to WMF if I knew that the fundraising system was aggressively working to gather money to improve that whole ecosystem. (Instead, donating right now would feel like making a donation to slightly decrease the number of fundraising banners seen by readers; if I don't donate, I know there are more than enough readers who will.) One strategy for supporting other free software/free culture organizations would be to make few-strings-attached grants for specific work that will benefit us. (For example, we give a grant that lets them pay a developer's salary for a year to work on this or that project that will result in better MediaWiki performance, or easier management of our stack.) That would be consistent with what our donors intend when they give. -Sage (ragesoss) On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:50 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 involved in the discussions. They have the technical infrastructure to eliminate deadlinks pretty much universally across our sites, and Andrew Lih and I have also been speaking with them about a very interesting video project that would get around a lot of the video limitations we currently have. So even if we don't currently use them heavily, I think there are a lot of opportunities there :) Best, Kevin Gorman On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 April 2014 20:50, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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. Creative Commons, OpenStreetMap spring to mind. What are their budgets like? I expect ours dwarfs theirs. We should throw money at Freenode on a regular basis. CC is a charity, I think OSM is a nonprofit but not actually a UK charity as yet (though WMUK achieving charity status makes that more achievable if they want to go for that). Internet Archive and Archiveteam is not something we use as heavily as any of those, but they need it too. Is there anyone else whose stuff we prevail upon that we really should be helping? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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) that donors have a strong track record of management such that the WMF does not find it necessary to oversee how the funds are used (i.e. a donation and not a grant), 3) and that the mission of the organization is linked to the overall mission of the WMF (avoid general good thing advocacy such as is sometimes suggested on this list). 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 provided by a paid employee to a non-profit at no charge would also fall into this category. I don't know that it would be beneficial to have the vetting process be community driven, and I'd like to see the implications for affiliates considered (i.e. does the WMF/FDC have a position on whether affiliates should be redirecting WMF funding to third party non-profits?). ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 provided by a paid employee to a non-profit at no charge would also fall into this category. I don't know that it would be beneficial to have the vetting process be community driven, and I'd like to see the implications for affiliates considered (i.e. does the WMF/FDC have a position on whether affiliates should be redirecting WMF funding to third party non-profits?). 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. Perhaps an engineer, perhaps some server space, perhaps just an unrestricted grant (on the principle that if you trust a charity enough to donate, you trust them enough to do good stuff with it). - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net a écrit : 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 sponsorship would be helpful or whether it would be a waste of money. Thanks, Mike On 15 Apr 2014, at 20:50, 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations
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 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 supported financially one edition of the Libre Graphics Meeting. This looked like a good investment, as most of the tools discussed during this meeting are used by the Wikimedia community. The money was mostly used by Swiss participants -- not necessarily members of the Wikimedia community, but people we were eager to connect to, as their competences could be useful to us (kill two birds with one stone...). We had ideas about how to collaborate further, but they haven't materialised yet. We did not further discuss this kind of funding at the level of our chapter, however, mostly because it was difficult to assess its impact (and even more its impact on the Wikimedia projects). But I can easily imagine that a global effort could have a clear impact. Talking about other communities, we also had projects planned with the local CC people, such as helping to adapt/translate the licenses to the Swiss legal system and in French. In the end they managed to fund this effort without our help (Wikimedia CH's lawyer mostly funded it, so we still helped indirectly :-). We still have some ideas there, and this is a local collaboration that could be very useful. However, I can see clearly the slippery slope you mention: in the recent past, several new friends of Wikimedia CH appeared from neighboring communities, and they had no shortage of projects they wanted us to help funding... (and we mostly had to say no). As an aside, coming back to software, I have noted that the WMF gets gets a special thank you note on the git-annex web page (https://git-annex.branchable.com/thanks/); is it a tool that has been supported financially ? (and, I assume, a tool that the WMF uses regularly) ? If it is the case, I applaud this support. Best wishes, Frédéric On 15/04/14 21:50, Erik Moeller 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 specific goal established in a grant agreement. This comes up from time to time. One of the few historic precedents I'm aware of is the $5,000 donation that WMF made to FreeNode in 2006 [1]. But there are of course many other organizations/communities that the Wikimedia movement is indebted to. 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], infrastructure tools like ganglia, observium, icinga, etc. Some of these projects have nonprofits that accept and seek sponsorship and support, some don't. One could easily expand well beyond the software we depend on server-side to client-side open source applications used by our community to create content: stuff like Inkscape, GIMP and LibreOffice (used for diagrams). And there are other communities we depend on, like OpenStreetMap. So, should we steer clear of this type of sponsorship altogether because it's a slippery slope, or should we try to come up with evaluation criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis (e.g. is there a trustworthy non-profit that has a track record of accomplishment and is in actual need of financial support)? I could imagine a process with a fixed giving back annual budget and a community nominations/review workflow. It'd be work to create and I don't want to commit to that yet, but I would be interested to hear opinions. MariaDB specifically invited WMF to become a sponsor, and we're clearly highly dependent on them. But I don't think it makes sense for us to just write checks if there's someone who asks for support and there's a justifiable need. However, if there's broad agreement that this is something Wikimedia should do more of, then I think it's worth developing more consistent sponsorship criteria. Thanks, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Freenode_Donation [2] Cf. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Upstream_projects ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
