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>
