[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
Chris Keating
From: Ting Chen <tc...@wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <founda...@lists.wikimedia.org>
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to announce the following three resolutions
1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
1) Fundraising 2012: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012
2) Funds Dissemination Committee: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
For those of you who are currently in Berlin, we will have a 2 hour window tomorrow to discuss this together, we invite you to send questions for this session to Harel Cain (<harel...@gmail.com <mailto:harel...@gmail.com>>) He will be moderating tomorrow's session which will be similar to the Q&A session we had in Paris.
We are currently working on a Question and Answer document which we will publish as soon as possible.
Although the decision has now been made, we have a large number of challenges ahead of us and I hope that we as a movement will come together to make the Funds Dissemination Committee a success by working with us to come up with answers tot the questions that we still have and helping to make it work!
--
Ting Chen
Member of the Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
E-Mail: tc...@wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
founda...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
HJ Mitchell
From: Chris Keating <chriskea...@gmail.com>
To: wikime...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, 30 March 2012, 22:50
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikime...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Thomas Dalton
> Could somebody concisely explain what this certainly means for WMUK, and
> what it might mean in the worst- and best-case scenarios? I understand the
> issues, and I'm sure the nuances are still being worked out, but I can't be
> the only person wondering.
While I'm no longer closely involved in WMUK, I have been very
involved with the discussions that led up to this resolution, so I'll
have a go at explaining it.
It means that, in the 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16
fundraisers, WMUK will be allowed to place banners on the WMF websites
as long as it can convince Sue Gardner than it satisfies the following
criteria:
1) There is sufficient money raised in the geography to merit the
logistical effort.
2) The organization offers tax deductibility or other incentives to
local donors.
3) Regulatory issues about any international funds flows are fully resolved.
4) The organization's current financial resources are not enough to
fund proposed program work.
5) The Foundation can confidently assure donors to the chapter that
their donations will be safeguarded, that our movement's transparency
principles will be met, and that spending will be in line with our
mission and with the messages used to attract donors.
I don't think there can be any argument on points 1, 2 and 4.
(Although point 4 is a very strange one, given that we're supposed to
be moving any from any connection between where money is raised and
where it is spent...)
Point 3 has caused some issues in the past, but I think they are all
resolved now. Someone on the current board can confirm the current
situation there.
Point 5 shouldn't be a problem. Jon Davies, with the support of the
board, is putting a lot of effort into making sure all appropriate
safeguards are in place.
So, in conclusion, I'm fairly confident WMUK will participate in those
fundraisers. There is a slight concern that Sue will be biased by her
own opinion that chapters shouldn't be fundraising at all, but I don't
think we'll have a real problem there.
Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The
WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that
the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success
chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to
fundraise. It is also possible that the decision will be re-evaluated
before 2016, especially as the membership of the board can be expected
to change (the 2 chapter selected seats will be filled this summer and
the 3 community elected seats will be filled next summer).
There is also going to be a substantial change in how the money raised
is allocated. A new committee is being formed that will review the
budget proposals from the WMF (excluding their core spending),
chapters and anyone else that wants large amounts of money (smaller
grants will continue to be made by the WMF and chapters) and decide
who will get what amount of money. Any money WMUK raises in excess of
the amount the committee decides it should get (not including money
raised in ways other than the annual fundraiser - that money is
completely under WMUK's control), will be donated to the WMF (or
directly to other chapters and organisations that it has been
allocated to, that hasn't been worked out yet).
jon.d...@wikimedia.org.uk
David Gerard
> Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The
> WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that
> the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success
> chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to
> fundraise.
Has anyone managed to get solid criteria on this as yet?
> It is also possible that the decision will be re-evaluated
> before 2016, especially as the membership of the board can be expected
> to change (the 2 chapter selected seats will be filled this summer and
> the 3 community elected seats will be filled next summer).
Every five-year plan is actually a six-month plan, yes.
- d.
Thomas Dalton
> On 31 March 2012 21:53, Thomas Dalton <thomas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now, what happens in the 2016-17 fundraiser is anybody's guess. The
>> WMF board is intending to re-evaluate the whole thing. My hope is that
>> the 4 fundraising chapters will have demonstrated what a success
>> chapters fundraising can be and other chapters will be able to
>> fundraise.
>
>
> Has anyone managed to get solid criteria on this as yet?
I haven't. We've been promised a Q&A explaining the WMF board's
decisions in more detail. I'm hoping that will contain the solid
criteria.
WereSpielChequers
I wouldn't worry about possible further centralisation after 2016, by then the pendulum will have swung and centralisation will be out of favour. The movement is by its nature global and decentralised, you can't work against the grain for long before that reality hits you.
On a broader note I would suggest that the UK prioritise longterm funding streams - payroll giving, and annual direct debits which may have a lower attrition rate than monthly direct debits. Longer term we should think about legacies. One of the flaws of the movement's current fundraising model is the disconnect between our longterm ambitions and the short term nature of our fundraising. I suspect that has already become an issue with the GLAM sector. It would be really cool if in three years time we could say "yes we've only existed for fourteen years, but even if all else went phut tomorrow we already have an endowed data centre that could maintain a read only version on the web for the foreseeable future."
WSC
Chris Keating
Charles Matthews
I wouldn't worry about possible further centralisation after 2016, by then the pendulum will have swung and centralisation will be out of favour. The movement is by its nature global and decentralised, you can't work against the grain for long before that reality hits you.
Gordon Joly
>
> On a broader note I would suggest that the UK prioritise longterm
> funding streams - payroll giving, and annual direct debits which may
> have a lower attrition rate than monthly direct debits. Longer term we
> should think about legacies. One of the flaws of the movement's
> current fundraising model is the disconnect between our longterm
> ambitions and the short term nature of our fundraising. I suspect that
> has already become an issue with the GLAM sector. It would be really
> cool if in three years time we could say "yes we've only existed for
> fourteen years, but even if all else went phut tomorrow we already
> have an endowed data centre that could maintain a read only version on
> the web for the foreseeable future."
Also - "Wikimedia Commons" vs "Archives for All" - where should you
lodge copies of your data?
Gordo
--
Gordon Joly
gordo...@pobox.com
http://www.joly.org.uk/
Don't Leave Space To The Professionals!
Roger Bamkin
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Flickr:Victuallers2
Tom Morris
On Monday, 2 April 2012 at 08:54, Gordon Joly wrote:
> Also - "Wikimedia Commons" vs "Archives for All" - where should you
> lodge copies of your data?
Both, and more. Archiving today is a distribution problem, not a trust problem. Make it copyleft/PD, make it easily moveable, let people replicate it and spread it.
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>