Daniel Mayer wrote:
>--- Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I asked Michael if we could get a financial report to evaluate the
>>situation. Financial statements for the year are roughly done, but for a
>>part about Wikimania still not fixed. I suppose Mav should soon give us
>>more feedback I expect. We have approximately 530 000 dollars in cash,
>>which is roughly what it was at the end of February.
>>
>>
>You have a report from me that lists per quarter spending and income for all of 2004, 2005 and the
>first quarter of this year. The only thing missing are Wikimania expenses for 2005 (Michael is
>working on incorporating that into the regular finances, last I heard) and a current liquid asset
>report (Micheal is much better situated to prepare that as well).
>
I haven't had much occasion to look for it recently, but I have been
habving a hard time finding proper frinancial statements for the last
completed fiscal year. I did find
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Finance_report and that seems to
include expenses for the first two quarters of 2005. I understand that
this is the last quarter of the fiscal year. I would expect that proper
financial statements for the 2004-5 fiscal year end should be available
somewhere. This should include a Statement of Income and Expenses and a
Balance Sheet. Wikimania 2005 expenses should have no bearing on this
since that took place after the fiscal year end. Perhaps I am looking
in the wrong place, and I just need a proper link to the statement.
The above noted interim report did show a depreciation expense, but gave
no information about how that amount was calculated. Remember that
depreciation calculations are not just a matter of tax deductions, but
give an idea of the extent to which an organization has planned for
hardware wearing out or becoming obsolete.
>>In terms of getting funds, we try to get more organised to collect funds
>>from those using our content or setting up search systems on our db.
>>Danny also made a pretty active search of sponsors for Wikimania. I also
>>tried to strongly suggest donating to a couple of organisations through
>>the special project committee, but with no success as of today :-(
>>
>>
>Getting funds in that way is great, but almost all of that kind of money will be program-specific
>(money that can only be used for, for example, to print textbooks in Africa or, as you mention, to
>help pay for a conference). So I suspect that most operating expenses (servers, bandwidth and
>staffing) will continue to require donations from readers.
>
Targetted donations can be a problem for any non-profit organization,
and some refuse such strings completely. They should probably appear on
the balance sheet as some kind of contingent liability.
>>In terms of expenses, we definitely have Wikimania coming.
>>
>>
>I have yet to see a budget for Wikimania, so how are we planning that? One must know how much
>something will cost before trying to figure out if we have enough money for it. :)
>
Absolutely true enough. Mav, I believe that you have been working hard
and honestly in your post as Chief Financial Officer, but I sometimes
wonder if you are being provided with all the information you need. As
I understand the position in its usual definition, you should have full
access on demand to _all_ financial records such as cancelled checks,
deposit records, invoices and contracts with monetary implications.
Without that access your title is a misnomer.
>>Two techco meetings took place two weeks ago and a couple of days ago,
>>so I suppose we can expect new order pretty soon :-)
>>
>>
>IIRC, there was some talk after the last multi-hour outage to start building a second large fully
>Wikimedia-owned and controlled server farm and have it in a geographically different place than
>the current server farm (maybe near Brion in the LA area). The idea being, that if one server farm
>goes down, that the other could take over with minimal disruption to at least reading of pages. If
>that is the case, then we have some fairly serious server expenses coming up.
>
That kind of back up facility has always been desirable, though I
wouldn't go so far as to agree that LA would be the best place for it.
I don't think that there is any need to build it all up at once, but a
site can be chosen that starts as a more limited server which can be
built up over an extended period of time.
>>There are some pretty advanced discussions to hire staff as well. CEO,
>>legal in-house counsel as well as more assistants to help with OTRS and
>>phone answering.
>>
>>
>Nod. But, IMO, we should seriously consider a better place for the Wikimedia main office before
>hiring lots of people. St Pete is fine as a tourist destination and maybe even as a satellite
>office of the foundation given that two board members and Danny live there, but the host city of
>the main office of an international organization? Sorry, but no.
>
>Washington D.C. or NYC are places where almost every nation of world sends their ambassadors and
>where a multitude of other international organizations, which we really should be working closely
>with, are based. Talent pool is another consideration; many more people with the relevant
>experience we need already live in those cities.
>
That's a strange view. One of the big advantages of an online
organization is that it can be headquartered anywhere. As an average
online user, when I connect I just want a good connection to wherever in
the world it is. I can recognize the prestige argument for the location
of a headquarters, but is it cost effective. Are the representatives of
the African nations in NYC really the people that you want to deal with
when you are trying to build an African project. If we want to have an
impact on the people in those countries we would do better to have
people in place on the ground, rather. If you want to appreciate the
kinds of problems listen to Stephen Lewis' "Race Against Time". The
first of this series of lectures is available through
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey.html Let's not assume that our goals
will be served by cozying up to those who are a part of the problem if
not their cause.
I don't subscribe to the idea that a talent pool is somehow concentrated
in the New York and Washington rat race. Wikipedia is a synthesis of
talents from around the world; we could find the talent pool that we
need anywhere in the world. To the extent that these positions need to
be filled by Americans, why should they be unwilling to move to the
Sunshine State which has the additional benefit of not having a state
personal income tax.
>>So, I'd say we would definitely benefit from a fundraising. It is not
>>*urgent* but we need to anticipate before it becomes urgent.
>>
>>
>I told the board before that I will not run another fundraiser without the help from a duly
>created fundraising committee. Nobody from the board has proposed the creation of such a committee
>yet and I won't waste my time (as I did with trying to help staff the finance committee) until the
>board acts.
>
>We also really should pass a budget for the rest of the year before we have a fundraiser. I'm
>going to send the spending forecast you aleady have to the officers and committees this weekend.
>Hopefully, it won't take long to turn that into a proposed budget for the board to vote one.
>
Congratulations for taking a stand.
Ec
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l