On 31 March 2014 14:08, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > When there is enough money to go around, efficacy should be the primary > consideration. When charitable funds are available and they are not spend > because of misplaced frugality, it is obvious to me that priorities are out > of kilter. > > Your second arguments makes more sense but also up to a point. When the > bigger chapters are more able to do what is right by all chapters, it means > that they should be present and listen more and impose less. When the > German chapter sends fewer people, it does not imply that what these people > have to say carries less weight. When fewer people mean that the existing > needs for us as a world community are not heard, it is not effective at > all. When people are effective at a conference and are the ones who decide > on how to move forward, where to spend money they should be at the > conferences where the combined efforts may be aligned. > > Money should only be a consideration when there is not enough and when it > is not spend effectively. > Thanks, > GerardM
Gerard, I am unclear if you believe that from the information available this appears to be an effective use of Wikimedia funds. For one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more representatives to this conference than the others when they are not even the host does not appear effective to my eyes, rather than "misplaced frugality". A rationale for a higher UK representatives might be that London is the host for Wikimania this year, however the attendees going for other reasons were excluded from the count of 8. From my quick check, there are actually 10 members of Wikimedia UK going to the conference. It is reasonable to assume that they are being funded to do so through Wikimedia funds, however as there are no complete open list I cannot check this fact. In addition we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia projects, as many names are given no link or context. For example, being a past Chair of the chapter I am familiar with most people active in it, however, oddly, this is the first time I have seen the name Katherine Ruth published and there is no information available about her on the UK wiki. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ 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>
