phoebe ayers <> writes:

> With Sam, I'd like to add my thanks to Lila, and to the fundraising
> team which has done an extraordinary job of testing, optimizing, and
> running our fundraising campaigns. And thanks to all of you, for being
> concerned about and invested in our projects' public image and
> financial health and future.

The fundraising team is amazing at their jobs. They raise money incredibly
efficiently. So indeed, thank you fundraising team for your work. It's a
high pressure job, which I can empathize with.

As one of the people concerned about the projects' public image, I read your
words of thanks, but don't feel thanked by the content of your post, since
it doesn't address the raised concerns.

Have you seen the data that suggests the public image isn't being damaged?
The board members have signed NDAs, so they are allowed access to the raw
data. I also have a signed NDA, so technically I should be allowed to see it
as well.

Can you answer some direct questions? Do you feel the size of the banners is
appropriate to the mission, given that it obscures the content significantly
(and in many cases completely)? Do you feel the messaging is accurate to the
financial situation of the Foundation?

> Some perspective from my role as a trustee:
> One section of our recent board meeting was spent discussing the
> fundraising trends that Lila refers to, and thinking about the
> longer-term future of fundraising on our projects. These trends
> include: on-site page views are dramatically down over the past two
> years in the US & Europe, where the majority of our revenue is raised.
> At the same time, there are challenges with fundraising in many of the
> places where readership is growing. Additionally, of course we want
> and need a strong financial basis for the projects over the long-term

gmane seems to be cutting off most of your message in the followup view,
which is unfortunate.

Your post mostly discusses the financial situation and the efficacy of the
banners. There's no question about the efficacy of the banners. They work
extremely well and there's shared data that proves it. There's question
about the content and the size of the banners and there's no shared data
that shows harm isn't being caused.

It's disappointing that a member of the board sees it as appropriate to
scare people as a means of generating funding. The foundation meets its
goals every year. As you've pointed out in this post, it does so faster than
ever, even while increasing the budget every year. This shows well that the
situation isn't dire.

- Ryan

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to