On 1 December 2015 at 23:09, Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> do we have any definite number that if reach then we would not any
> fundraiser again in the future (I really would like to to see WMF in the
> position in which, it would not need yearly fundraiser to stand up and keep
> running ) , like 100 M mentioned in the meta page ?

That $100m number sounds oddly familiar, so a quick historical footnote:

The endowment idea was first suggested seriously in 2006 (at least, I
can't see it being discussed before) and a figure of $100m was being
generally quoted as what would be needed by 2008. There had been some
discussions about a hypothetical "$100m donation" before that, in
2006-7, and it might be that this helped shape the discussion of how
big an endowment might need to be.

In 2008, the number was examined a bit and it was seen as plausibly
solid - our annual operating costs were a little under $5m at that
point and getting a 5% return on endowment was a reasonable
expectation.

As Anne points out, though, we do a lot more now than we did then!

Andrew.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to