On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
advance that the money
Hello Birgitte,
Thank you for these comments and edits/suggestions. [all: please also
post suggestions on Meta. most people are not subscribed to this
list.]
This Board letter was published on short notice. Once it was clear
that the issue should be raised and discussed this year, we wanted to
Hello MZM, thanks for taking a start at new pages to illustrate the
discussion on Meta.
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
I fail to see how violating the community's principles of transparency and
accountability by keeping everything on a non-public list is any better. I
just hope nobody's
The more I read the Board's letter the more difficult I find it to
interpret. There's one reading on which it says only a few (albeit
important) things that aren't already in the 2011 Fundraising Agreements.
There is another reading in which it says that actually no chapters will be
participating
Hi,
I've got an awkward feeling toward this whole thread. I'll try to explain why.
For years, every single discussion has been WMF versus the chapters.
few years ago it kinda made sense as we had so different issues and we
were trying to codify the relationship between our organizations
through
On Aug 6, 2011, at 2:41 AM, Samuel Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
Hello Birgitte,
Thank you for these comments and edits/suggestions. [all: please also
post suggestions on Meta. most people are not subscribed to this
list.]
This Board letter was published on short notice.
On Aug 6, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello MZM, thanks for taking a start at new pages to illustrate the
discussion on Meta.
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
.
Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
is outside of this list's scope is insane.
On 8/6/2011 4:00 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
On 8/6/11 1:36 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
.. Honestly, I must say that it
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all
All,
At the recent Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees meeting at Wikimania,
the Board approved sending the following letter regarding concerns with our
shared fundraising practice, and outlining principles for future fundraising
practices.
This will also be posted at
phoebe ayers wrote:
The Board of Trustees has recently reviewed our fundraising model and issues
related to the way donor funds are received. This review followed detailed
discussions among the Board's Audit Committee and with our outside auditors,
which highlighted issues about the level of
MZM,
WMF *can't *ask money back from Chapters. By the agreement, Chapters who
participate in last year Fundraising need to give 50% of everything they
raised to WMF, but they are not forced to do anything more. And WMF can't
ask for more than that because there are 2 different organizations.
Béria Lima wrote:
WMF *can't *ask money back from Chapters. By the agreement, Chapters who
participate in last year Fundraising need to give 50% of everything they
raised to WMF, but they are not forced to do anything more. And WMF can't
ask for more than that because there are 2 different
The discussion in Internal-l is case-to-case and don't concern people who
are not involved in the chapter in discussion or WMF.
And - again - WMF don't give money to chapters in fundraising. The chapter
earn it alone. And the only thing to be in the way is the fundraising
agreement. Who - again -
Béria Lima wrote:
The discussion in Internal-l is case-to-case and don't concern people who
are not involved in the chapter in discussion or WMF.
Where did the money come from? I think it unambiguously concerns people who
are part of the Wikimedia community (broadly defined), seeing as they
*Where did the money come from? I think it unambiguously concerns people
who are part of the Wikimedia community (broadly defined), seeing as they
were the ones to donate the money.
*
1. People who donate money are mostly NOT on fundation-l and 2.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports (if
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I sugguest you to go tough chapters report and ask what they are doing with
the money they receive in Fundraising. They need to be transparent about
what they are doing, but WMF does not have a policy status over that.
If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your people
curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are public.
Only particular details are handle in private
_
*Béria Lima*
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
If they do revoke (which they can, because do report are part of Chapter
Agreement), will be also a private discussion. I do understand your people
curiosity to know what they discusses, but all the relevant info are public.
Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
details be discussed in private is both improper and at distinct odds
with the history of the
Also, the spreadsheet Beria linked
(https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Av5TeXEyGuvpdGRyNDJHS19RZmRqbWlqeHp5ak5uWncauthkey=CKb59_wDhl=pt_PT#gid=0)
shows how much money was received by from each region, but not how
much was distributed to the chapters (or so I'm guessing, since
Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
far more authority to comment on the matter than her.
Theo
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Beria, I don't think
Other than that Beria is the person to whom I was replying, I suppose.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan, there is no reason to single out Beria. She at least responded to
the questions. There are a lot of people reading this who didn't and have
far more
You don't need to defend me Theo.
Nathan and MZM: If you want to know how much each chapter has earned and
spent, there are reports (nathan himself pointed to the page).
If you have any questions about Internal-l adress it to
internal-l-ow...@list.wikimedia.org (I'm sure they will answer you)
On 8/5/2011 2:22 PM, Nathan wrote:
Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same is
true of the wider community of editors and donors; the assertion that
details be discussed in private is both improper and at
-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters
On 8/5/2011 2:22 PM, Nathan wrote:
Beria, I don't think your views on transparency as stated mesh all
that well with the character of this list. I'd suspect the same
Many chapters are shocked at this announcement, and there is a likely
conversation on internal-l, which has followed after a blog
conversation which was reported in the Signpost (see first item in
News in brief).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/News_and_notes
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
.. Honestly, I must say that it
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
talk page on Meta where the letter was posted.
On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
which is accountable to
On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
.. Honestly, I must say that it
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a single edit to the
Michael Snow wrote:
That being said, when it comes to discussing the guiding principles for
things like fundraising, or the relationships between the foundation and
chapters collectively, I do think it would be better to have more of
that discussion open to the entire community. In terms of
David Gerard wrote:
On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps I should post those private conversations to the wiki so we can use
the wiki to discuss the real problem: how the WMF is implementing the
improvement.
Violating confidentiality? Tch.
I fail to see
Michael Snow wrote:
On 8/5/2011 4:26 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
.. Honestly, I must say that it
is a colossal disappointment to find that with all the posts I've seen
both here and on internal-l, nobody has yet made a
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:39 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
.. Doesn't anybody here know
how to use a wiki?
I do!
Not having been able to find a chart so far, I created my own:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Chapters.
The list of chapters is
On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:45 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
.
People bring up the forum because this (foundation-l) is the central list
for the Wikimedia Foundation. Anyone who thinks that this particular issue
is outside of this list's scope is insane. Using internal-l as a
letter about fundraising and chapters
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
==Design principles==*
Our design principles for improving the fundraising model are:
* We are deeply committed to decentralized pursuit of our mission and to
supporting
On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
==Design principles==*
Our design principles for improving the fundraising model are:
* We are deeply committed to decentralized pursuit of our mission and to
supporting the long-term sustainability of chapters
John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
to consulting with outside auditors and meetings of the Audit
Committee suggest this decision may have been conceived prior to the
Fundraising Summit. Perhaps
Just to follow on from what John Vandenberg said, WMAU's fundraising report,
including all the facts and figures, was posted way way back at the
beginning of February. While there were some minor differences of opinion
between WMF and WMAU about some of the recommendations made, there was no
On 8/5/2011 7:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
to consulting with outside auditors and meetings of the Audit
Committee suggest this decision may have been conceived
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 6:42 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 8/5/2011 7:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
John's e-mail reads like a suggestion that the Foundation negotiated
in bad faith. I hope this isn't the case, although the references made
to consulting with outside auditors and
40 matches
Mail list logo
