Hoi,
You know, when the WMF is to be judged as an organisation, I would never
judge on a few incidents. I would judge it on its intrinsic value.
Personally and that is the highest level of commitment, personally I find
that we are doing a sterling job. Wikipedia is a top ten website in the
world. It runs it on an extremely low budget compared to other top ten
websites. This week a new WIkipedia is ready to become the next iteration
and as it is a rate occasion, it is a reason to celebrate. It is for the
talking heads to update their power points <grin> for me to make a power
point </grin>.

When people consider how well how well others do from our work. Do consider
that we are in the business of disseminating knowledge. When others make a
lot of money and we are still a top 10 website, we are doing extremely well
indeed. When others do well by us, and serve oodles of information, we are
a clear winner.

Our fundraising is great. It makes us lots of money and there are lots of
worthwhile things we can do with it. It is all part of the same relatively
low budget.  We could do more. We choose to focus on Wikipedia. That is a
mistake but ok. We could do better as a result and not spend more money.

When we make more money, when we operate an endowment fund, it makes us an
investor. We should not invest in oil, guns ... we could invest in green
energy, it would offset the damage the Internet, our work, does through CO2
everywhere. It would show our responsibility now and for the future.

When we think that we have a PR disaster on our hand, do consider the
extend it is one of our own making.. Personally speaking I find the
continuous sniping a disgrace. So much time and effort is wasted because
shit happens. It does, get over it. Do better next time and the next time
is always more convoluted and impossible to achieve. Assume good faith,
expect that things go wrong, deal with it, clean up the mess and move on.
Do not continuously sing the refrain of what went wrong.

It truly makes us miserable.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 3 February 2016 at 18:38, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a couple of comments, mostly directed to WMF, about fundraising and
> governance matters:
>
> As a matter of good governance, I would not encourage WMF to be seeking
> large external partners who do solid due-diligence about their grantees
> until WMF demonstrates that it can complete an annual planning process that
> is aligned with the good practices already being demonstrated by affiliates
> and aligned with the expectations of the FDC. I feel that an external
> partner who conducted a thorough evaluation of WMF's current annual plan
> would find it to be mediocre at best and I question whether a large
> institutional partner would be willing to invest six-figure or seven-figure
> sums in WMF given the state of WMF's current annual plan. I am glad to see
> that WMF is in the process of addressing this shortcoming, and I hope for
> good outcomes this year.
>
> Another issue that WMF needs to address is the state of its board. The
> handling of the situation with respect to two board members (the removal of
> James for opaque reasons, Jimbo's unprofessional comments about the removal
> of James, the appointment of Arnnon, and the Board's apparent decision not
> to remove Arnnon even after learning of his role in illegal activities)
> demonstrates significant problems in the board, and if I had millions of
> dollars to give in grants I surely would not entrust those funds to the WMF
> until there is a major overhaul of the board. Also, if I was an affiliate,
> I would have a lot of questions about the wisdom of fundraising on behalf
> of WMF given the serious PR liability that WMF has become, and I tend to
> think that at this time affiliates would be wise to put a considerable
> distance between ourselves and WMF because of the PR and fundraising
> collateral damage that we could receive from problems at WMF.
>
> WMF needs to get its house in order.
>
> Speaking in my personal capacity only,
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.po...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite the opposite. For several years now, the FDC recommendations
> for
> > > > applicant who come from rich countries have requested the Chapter
> > > > investigate diversifying their funding sources. All have tried, and
> > their
> > > > success has varied depending on many factors. Some have actually been
> > > quite
> > > > successful - I refer in particular to the recently announced grant by
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > I can also add that AFAIK the Foundation has never made the
> > > diversification of funds for chapters a hard rule. Rather, it
> encouraged
> > > organizations to seek alternative funding, when feasible. We have had
> > > historically cases of chapters that admitted they could relatively
> easily
> > > get external support, but just have preferred not to try to get it.
> > >
> > > All in all we should balance two things: (a) resources are finite. If
> we
> > > can easily get additional funding, especially in the Global North
> > > countries, that's great! We'll have more to do core work in the areas
> > > where it is not possible. (b) applying for external funding should not
> > > divert us from our main mission, and should not make chapters jump the
> > > loops of insane bureaucracy, irrational strain of effort, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Speaking as a former member of the FDC and current member of Simple
> Annual
> > Plan grant committee, I agree with Dariusz but add that a good use of
> > external resources can add more value than just the funded dollar amount.
> >
> > Instead of speaking of "funding" we should substitute "resources".   By
> > seeking out external resources, which is more than external grant money,
> > the wikimedia affiliates can build much greater capacity in a particular
> > region or topic area (GLAM or STEM or Healthcare.)
> >
> > >
> > > I believe we have been relatively successful so far. However, I agree
> > > that the Foundation perhaps is not using its full potential in engaging
> > > chapters in a dialogue how to effectively address the local supporters
> > > (both individuals and on an institutional level). We should use the
> > > extensive network of committed organizations to our advantage.
> > >
> >
> > It is key to the future of the wikimedia movement to identify
> institutional
> > partners (big and small) who  can advance the wikimedia mission.
> >
> > It is happening now with many affiliate organizations, and growing, but
> it
> > is not well documented or analysed yet. We need better analysis about the
> > ways that external partners are benefiting from their relationship with
> the
> > wikimedia movement and the wikimedia movement is benefiting from
> > relationships with external partners.
> >
> > This needs to be a joint dialogue between WMF and the affiliated
> > organizations including User Groups. I hope that people will join the WMF
> > strategic planning discussions and include their thoughts about
> developing
> > external resources that can benefit the wikimedia movement. Also, this
> is a
> > topic for Wikimedia Conference in Berlin.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wikipedia in Residence
> > at Cochrane
> > WikiWomen's User Group
> > Wiki Project Med Foundation User Group
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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