James - I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. Your questions are kind of like a legal deposition at this point. It's too complex and you seem to be trying to prove some series of points, but I can't figure out what they are.
In the end, it's just too confusing for me to approach. Sorry, Zack On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM, James Salsman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Zack Exley <[email protected]> wrote: > > James - > > > > I don't fully understand all your concerns.... > > > I think you might have tried to contact me via IM. Sorry but I'm too > distractible, so > > I limit my IM contacts. Just email me and I will try to respond > promptly. Probably > > better to ask me on list though > > Zack, is it inaccurate to say that you measured banners on May 11, > 2012 which outperformed all of the banners used in last year's > campaign? > > And then a day later you renamed the page with those measurements to > "We Need A Breakthrough" and wrote in some detail about how you > believed you would not be able to "significantly" outperform last > year's fundraising? > > When the 2012-2013 Annual Plan was drafted, was growth projected at > not just a slower rate, but less in absolute dollar terms than was > projected and occurred during the previous year? > > Relative to that slowed budget growth, were even more programs from > the Annual Plan and Strategic Plan cut in the "narrowing focus" > changes a few months ago, with no wide announcement for community > consultation and less than two dozen community members providing > feedback, the vast majority of whom were opposed or strongly opposed > to the cuts? > > Since May 11, have the baseline fundraising messages you were testing > performed as well or better than the tests of May 11, which > outperformed all of last year's banners? > > And over the past year have pageviews continued to grow at their > longstanding exponential rate from 16 billion per month to 21 billion > per month? > > Over the past year, have pageviews on non-mobile browsers also > strictly increased, with mobile page views under 2.7 billion per month > over the past twelve months? > > During the past year has the ratio of the Foundation's top executive > pay to the pay of junior staff and contractors increased by more than > 50%? > > And during the past year has Foundation employee turnover risen to a > record high for at least the past five years on a percentage basis? > > > Our tradition has always been to raise our budget and then stop asking as > > close to when we reach that goal as possible. > > Has the Foundation ever forgone the most valuable last few days of the > year, even when the fundraising goal was already met? (As I believe > has happened at least twice in the past five years when non-web > donations are considered.) > > > "Maximizing" for us means raising our budget > > with as little negative impact on the projects as possible > > Where do you find that meaning or any suggestion of it in the > unanimous resolution of the board of 9 October 2010? > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles > > Has the Board deliberated or voted on any resolution which is > compatible with the meaning you suggest? > > > (and as much positive impact as possible!). > > Given the answers to the questions above, how would you characterize > your impact this year? > > Sincerely, > James Salsman > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> James, > >> > >> Merry Christmas. > >> > >> I feel most of your points have already been addressed. > >> Two quick comments, that others also asked about: > >> > >> * As Zack noted earlier this month, banners are down until the > end-of-year > >> push. This has not changed. "From December 26 to Dec 31 we'll begin > >> showing banners again to everyone for a final push to the year end > goal." > >> > >> * I was also confused by the slide on reserves in the November monthly > >> report, and looked into it. Let me correct a statement I made > yesterday: > >> reserves were projected to be at 6 months of expenses in October, and > have > >> stayed above 6.3 months. > >> > >> For the first time this year there are two different ways to measure > >> expenses, thanks to the FDC budget, which allowed the confusion. For > >> details, see: > >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Reserves > >> > >> SJ > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM, James Salsman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > SJ, > >> > > >> > I have been looking for the commitment you mentioned in Board and > >> > related records, but I can not find it: > >> > > >> > > We have committed to ending the active banner-driven fundraising > once > >> > > we > >> > meet our targets. > >> > > >> > Does that commitment take precedence over the unanimous resolution of > >> > the board of 9 October 2010 that Nemo pointed out at > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_principles > >> > which directs the Executive Director to "implement ... 1) Maximizing > >> > public support: Fundraising activities in the Wikimedia movement > >> > should generally be directed at achieving the highest possible overall > >> > financial support for the Wikimedia movement, in terms of both > >> > financial totals and the number of individuals making > >> > contributions...."? If so, could you please share the background and > >> > Board deliberation records pertaining to it? I am concerned that the > >> > Foundation is bowing to the wishes of op-ed critiques in the press to > >> > the exclusion of the Board's unanimous resolutions. > >> > > >> > Again, I would not be so concerned if it were not for the evidence of > >> > the deception regarding measured fundraising message effectiveness, > >> > the nearly two million dollars in missing reserve funds, the sharply > >> > widening ratio between executive and junior staff pay, the high staff > >> > turnover, late vital projects, insufficient staff for the Education > >> > Program, employee dissatisfaction and below par compensation reported > >> > on Glassdoor.com, lack of a meaningfully wide call for community > >> > consultation or reasonable numbers of community members commenting on > >> > the recent "narrowing focus" changes, and lack of telepresence options > >> > for Wikimania attendees. Many of these issues dwarf the ignominious > >> > events of the Foundation's past, so I hope you, the other trustees, > >> > and the Foundation leadership will address all of them swiftly. > >> > > >> > Sincerely, > >> > James Salsman > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 > 4266 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Zack Exley > > Chief Revenue Officer > > Wikimedia Foundation > -- Zack Exley Chief Revenue Officer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
