Mailing List Archive

--- Erik Zachte <erikzachte@infodisiac.com> wrote:
> As on several earlier occasions I disagree with Mav on how Wikimedia money
> would be best spent. Washington D.C. or NYC are very expensive cities.

Not the suburbs of D.C. and to some extent parts of the NYC outside of Manhattan. The point, is to
be in a place where we can most easily establish connections with other nations and like-minded
organizations. Cost of rent is nothing compared to the synergies that would develop my being where
all the action is. Not to mention being a job market where we can find top talent.

-- mav


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/25/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not the suburbs of D.C. and to some extent parts of the NYC outside of Manhattan. The point, is to
> be in a place where we can most easily establish connections with other nations and like-minded
> organizations. Cost of rent is nothing compared to the synergies that would develop my being where
> all the action is. Not to mention being a job market where we can find top talent.

NYC makes sense to a certain degree because of the internationality
(UN, UNICEF), though of course relevant conferences and meetings are
held in many different locations around the world. Geneva or Brussels
would also work for the same reasons, and for some which do not apply
to NYC. Personally I don't mind the US HQ because it keeps most of the
legal trouble an ocean away from us EUians.

We also need to take into account laws that might be relevant to our
website operations. This is esp. true, unfortunately, in developing
countries. There may also be critical variations across US states.

But the idea to move the HQ because of "top talent" sounds rather
silly for an organization that was formed around several websites.
There are plenty of companies which are entirely decentralized these
days, not to mention that highly talented, intelligent, educated and
passionate people can be found everywhere in the world. Even in
Washington D.C.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Moeller wrote:
> But the idea to move the HQ because of "top talent" sounds rather
> silly for an organization that was formed around several websites.
> There are plenty of companies which are entirely decentralized these
> days, not to mention that highly talented, intelligent, educated and
> passionate people can be found everywhere in the world. Even in
> Washington D.C.

Indeed. Who actually would go to this main office, and what would they do there?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Brion:
> "Who actually would go to this main office, and what would they do there?"

Good question. I suppose there are administrative tasks that will grow as
the organisation gets bigger (like sending more and more donators a Xmas
card, oops bad example ;)

Mav:
> "Cost of rent is nothing compared to the synergies that would develop my
being
> where all the action is."

Well one major task that might benefit from close contact would be
organising a printed Wikipedia for every school in Africa, if it will ever
happen. (I can't believe the $100 notebook project is a panacea). I hope and
suppose printing would be done somewhere on that continent as well, so this
puts a different light on Mavs 'where all the action is'.

Mav what kind of (financial?) action are you referring too anyway? Stock
exchange, investment banks? Guess not, forgive my irony. What kind of major
deals would you (?) strike then in NY and not anywhere else?

Wikimedia made a difference because it dared to do things in a novel way,
not copying the ways of the old establishment.

Jimmy is travelling all over the world all the time. I guess his work is not
very dependant on where a main office resides, of course he can answer that
better.

Presence of Mav or his successor (not sure which time frame we are talking)
in New York or D.C. might be beneficial, although I don't see yet how. I
would think a main office is less for policy makers and deal strikers, but
rather for dealing with administrative chores.

In the old ways a main office was also very much needed for representational
needs. Big hallway, etc. I'm sure everyone agrees we don't need that. People
know how to find us, they're willing to come to Frankfurt to meet us, so why
not to Bangalore, San Jose or any place else?

Erik Moeller:
> "We also need to take into account laws that might be relevant to our
website operations.
> This is esp. true, unfortunately, in developing countries.
> There may also be critical variations across US states."

This would indeed be a complicating factor, if the web server would fall
under the jurisdiction of the country that hosts the main office. Not sure
if that would necessarily be the case. Maybe depends on which country we
choose?

Erik Zachte


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Erik Zachte wrote:
> Erik Moeller:
>
>> "We also need to take into account laws that might be relevant to our
>>
> website operations.
>
>> This is esp. true, unfortunately, in developing countries.
>> There may also be critical variations across US states."
>>
>
> This would indeed be a complicating factor, if the web server would fall
> under the jurisdiction of the country that hosts the main office. Not sure
> if that would necessarily be the case. Maybe depends on which country we
> choose?
>

That could be avoided by not really having a "main office" in the
traditional sense, but just offices where and when (and if) they're
needed. St. Petersburg could remain the place of incorporation of the
Foundation and its official mailing address, while actual physical
offices can be opened as needed. If there's a lot of work in Africa
necessitating some local physical presence, we could have a Nairobi
office, and it could be much bigger than the St. Petersburg office.
What's designated "main office" is more a legal formality; there's no
need for us to have one giant office in which everything takes place and
designate it "Wikimedia World Headquarters".

(Incidentally, that's how globalized "real companies" are increasingly
running things; the giant centralized main headquarters is no longer in
vogue.)

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> Erik Zachte wrote:
> > Erik Moeller:
> >
> >> "We also need to take into account laws that might be relevant to our
> >>
> > website operations.
> >
> >> This is esp. true, unfortunately, in developing countries.
> >> There may also be critical variations across US states."
> >>
> >
> > This would indeed be a complicating factor, if the web server would fall
> > under the jurisdiction of the country that hosts the main office. Not sure
> > if that would necessarily be the case. Maybe depends on which country we
> > choose?
> >
>
> That could be avoided by not really having a "main office" in the
> traditional sense, but just offices where and when (and if) they're
> needed. St. Petersburg could remain the place of incorporation of the
> Foundation and its official mailing address, while actual physical
> offices can be opened as needed. If there's a lot of work in Africa
> necessitating some local physical presence, we could have a Nairobi
> office, and it could be much bigger than the St. Petersburg office.
> What's designated "main office" is more a legal formality; there's no
> need for us to have one giant office in which everything takes place and
> designate it "Wikimedia World Headquarters".

/me *nods*

Exactly. Go with the needs.

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I'm not aware of any plans that call for massive hiring in a central
office. Most office hiring will be for routine administrative/clerical
functions which will be much cheaper outside of a major metropolitan
areas. Flights from St. Petersburg to NYC or DC are $200 round trip and
are easy day trips. International flights are more difficult but that
hasn't slowed down Jimbo. Given that the Foundations pays $400 per
month for office space, it's a whole lot cheaper to fly back and forth a
few time a month than lease office space in Manhattan.

Our strength is that we are a virtual organization and that isn't going
to change.

Michael

Erik Zachte wrote:
> Mav wrote:
>
> quote
>
> "...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."
>
> ---
>
> As on several earlier occasions I disagree with Mav on how Wikimedia money
> would be best spent. Washington D.C. or NYC are very expensive cities.
> Besides, those are cities with heavily political connotations. Of course
> there is no such thing as a political neutral location. Maybe St Petersburg
> USA comes close, not sure ;)
>
> We might show the world that we still do things differently, not per se, but
> when there is a good reason for it. We might do something substantial for
> the underdeveloped world by placing our head office in e.g. Africa or India.
> Wikimedia involvement in many underdeveloped countries is still largely
> lagging behind. We might reach out and make a powerful gesture of good faith
> in the potential of those parts of the world.
>
> To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city. Even the UN
> has a head office there. Running an office in Africa or India would be much
> cheaper. In a web-connected world travel times and costs are no longer very
> strong arguments against this.
>
> Erik Zachte
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Davis wrote:
> I'm not aware of any plans that call for massive hiring in a central
> office. Most office hiring will be for routine administrative/clerical
> functions which will be much cheaper outside of a major metropolitan
> areas. Flights from St. Petersburg to NYC or DC are $200 round trip and
> are easy day trips. International flights are more difficult but that
> hasn't slowed down Jimbo. Given that the Foundations pays $400 per
> month for office space, it's a whole lot cheaper to fly back and forth a
> few time a month than lease office space in Manhattan.
>
> Our strength is that we are a virtual organization and that isn't going
> to change.

Fully seconded. One of our strengths is extremely low costs implying
strong independence and no fears about our financial future. Adding a
lot of staff and the rent and salary costs associated with an office in
an expensive city does not appear to me very compelling, to say the least.

--Jimbo

--- Michael Davis <mdavis@wikia.com> wrote:
> I'm not aware of any plans that call for massive hiring in a central
> office. Most office hiring will be for routine administrative/clerical
> functions which will be much cheaper outside of a major metropolitan
> areas. Flights from St. Petersburg to NYC or DC are $200 round trip and
> are easy day trips. International flights are more difficult but that
> hasn't slowed down Jimbo. Given that the Foundations pays $400 per
> month for office space, it's a whole lot cheaper to fly back and forth a
> few time a month than lease office space in Manhattan.
>
> Our strength is that we are a virtual organization and that isn't going
> to change.

Nobody is advocating having an office in Manhattan. That would be insanely expensive. But having
one in suburb of Washington D.C. would be both cost effective and put us within a metro ride of
hundreds of potential contacts; both representatives from various nations and many other
like-minded organizations. Having our top paid staff there would even be more effective.

There are real limits to the amount that can get done via email, IRC, and telephones. For example,
we were able to do more work in the January face-to-face meeting than we did in the previous six
months. Face-to-face communication simply has a much higher bandwith (as does having direct
physical access to records). Increasing the opportunity for that by physical proximity to the
people we want and need to be in contact with, can only reap great benefits.

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/25/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are real limits to the amount that can get done via email, IRC, and telephones. For example,
> we were able to do more work in the January face-to-face meeting than we did in the previous six
> months. Face-to-face communication simply has a much higher bandwith (as does having direct
> physical access to records). Increasing the opportunity for that by physical proximity to the
> people we want and need to be in contact with, can only reap great benefits.
>
> -- mav


Okay, so even if this was the case, would the foundation be wanting to
rent or buy? Buying would obviously be more cost-effective, but how
much would the foundation be willing to spend on a new office?
Doesn't most of the current budget go towards server upkeep/purchase,
etc.? Do we happen to have a tens of thousand of US dollars just
laying around? If meetups are more effective, why not just schedule
more regular meet ups? Meet in a library or some other suitable
meeting area. I came into this convo a little late, forgive my
noobishness.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Erik Zachte <erikzachte@infodisiac.com> wrote:
> > As on several earlier occasions I disagree with Mav on how Wikimedia money
> > would be best spent. Washington D.C. or NYC are very expensive cities.
>
> Not the suburbs of D.C. and to some extent parts of the NYC outside of
> Manhattan. The point, is to
> be in a place where we can most easily establish connections with other
> nations and like-minded
> organizations.

Washington is (and more importantly is thought of as) an *American*
not international administrative centre. It would send a bad message
to the rest of the world if we moved there.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon@jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, so even if this was the case, would the foundation be wanting to
> rent or buy? Buying would obviously be more cost-effective, but how
> much would the foundation be willing to spend on a new office?
> Doesn't most of the current budget go towards server upkeep/purchase,
> etc.? Do we happen to have a tens of thousand of US dollars just
> laying around? If meetups are more effective, why not just schedule
> more regular meet ups? Meet in a library or some other suitable
> meeting area. I came into this convo a little late, forgive my
> noobishness.

A couple more thousand per month would have a very minimal impact on a multi-million dollar per
year budget. There is a significant opportunity cost of having to set up meetings way in advance
because all the key people need to fly into one place vs simply having key people already on the
ground where we know contacts are already located.

What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in St Pete? None outside the tourist industry and Scientology
AFAIK. What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in D.C. and NYC? Representatives from just about every
nation on earth along with hundreds of like-minded organizations that share different parts of our
goals. If we had an office near D.C. or NYC, then meeting with any one of those key contacts could
be done casually, often, and without much notice beforehand.

Strengthening ties like that is a great opportunity. Are we going to throw that away by pretending
that email and IRC with the occasional real world meeting have anything near the bandwidth of
frequent face-to-face communication?

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Washington is (and more importantly is thought of as) an *American*
> not international administrative centre. It would send a bad message
> to the rest of the world if we moved there.

That is symbolism over substance and thus not a valid argument in my book. Besides, D.C. itself is
too expensive, the office would be in a suburb (preferably reasonably close to a Metro station).

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For me, who live in Swiss, to see that Washington could be the seat of the
main office of WF I automatically could think about a link between it and
US government. I know that european thought is very strange! but for a non-political
association this could be a bad choice.

Ilario


>-- Messaggio originale --
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 20:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office
>Reply-To: dmayer@wikimedia.org,
> Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
>
>
>--- Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Washington is (and more importantly is thought of as) an *American*
>> not international administrative centre. It would send a bad message
>> to the rest of the world if we moved there.
>
>That is symbolism over substance and thus not a valid argument in my book.
>Besides, D.C. itself is
>too expensive, the office would be in a suburb (preferably reasonably close
>to a Metro station).
>
>-- mav
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/5/26, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>:

> A couple more thousand per month would have a very minimal impact on a multi-million dollar per
> year budget. There is a significant opportunity cost of having to set up meetings way in advance
> because all the key people need to fly into one place vs simply having key people already on the
> ground where we know contacts are already located.

I don't see how moving the office would diminish that problem. As far
as I see it, the office would not be the "key people", and as far as
they are, they are so by being who they are, not by their function.

> What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in St Pete? None outside the tourist industry and Scientology
> AFAIK. What key non-Wikimedia contacts are in D.C. and NYC? Representatives from just about every
> nation on earth along with hundreds of like-minded organizations that share different parts of our
> goals. If we had an office near D.C. or NYC, then meeting with any one of those key contacts could
> be done casually, often, and without much notice beforehand.

If we have people near D.C. or NYC, they could do that without the
office being there physically. If we have no people there, then it
would in my opinion be stupiditiy to move our office there.



--
Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we have people near D.C. or NYC, they could do that without the
> office being there physically. If we have no people there, then it
> would in my opinion be stupiditiy to move our office there.

Of course we already have people (volunteers) there in the strictest sense. What I’m talking about
is having most or at least the top paid staff there instead of in a place where they won’t be as
effective (a tourist hot spot). Remember, this whole thread started with a mention of hiring a
CEO/Executive Director. I do not propose closing the St Pete office since we have two board
members there along with our main server farm.

-- mav


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Is this the first time a CEO has been proposed? what on earth would be
the point of having one? I ask if this is the first time it has been
asked because i would like to see any wikipages or archeived email
threads to see what the arguments are for having one.

paz y amor,
-rjs.

On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we have people near D.C. or NYC, they could do that without the
> > office being there physically. If we have no people there, then it
> > would in my opinion be stupiditiy to move our office there.
>
> Of course we already have people (volunteers) there in the strictest sense.
> What I'm talking about
> is having most or at least the top paid staff there instead of in a place
> where they won't be as
> effective (a tourist hot spot). Remember, this whole thread started with a
> mention of hiring a
> CEO/Executive Director. I do not propose closing the St Pete office since we
> have two board
> members there along with our main server farm.
>
> -- mav
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon@jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/26/06, Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this the first time a CEO has been proposed? what on earth would be
> the point of having one? I ask if this is the first time it has been
> asked because i would like to see any wikipages or archeived email
> threads to see what the arguments are for having one.

There's been a brief public discussion about it in January:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-January/thread.html#5790

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this the first time a CEO has been proposed? what on earth would be
> the point of having one? I ask if this is the first time it has been
> asked because i would like to see any wikipages or archeived email
> threads to see what the arguments are for having one.

We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time we did so publicly was
just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is due to the fact that we
long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have therefore been missing
out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very large donations and to
reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing. And a staff needs a
person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization. Simply put, we are
transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional organization. Staff are an
investment.

-- mav


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time we did so publicly was
> just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is due to the fact that we
> long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have therefore been missing
> out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very large donations and to
> reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing. And a staff needs a
> person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization. Simply put, we are
> transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional organization. Staff are an
> investment.
>

This isn't without risks; many initially grass-roots organizations have
lost the essence of what initially made them work in the transition to
large, professional organization (this is especially true, for example,
of many environmentalist organizations). It's not impossible to do
right, but IMO needs to be done slowly and cautiously. There are plenty
of things that a grassroots organization can get people to do for free
that an organization with a large, paid staff cannot.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>
> This isn't without risks; many initially grass-roots organizations have
> lost the essence of what initially made them work in the transition to
> large, professional organization (this is especially true, for example,
> of many environmentalist organizations). It's not impossible to do
> right, but IMO needs to be done slowly and cautiously. There are plenty
> of things that a grassroots organization can get people to do for free
> that an organization with a large, paid staff cannot.
>
> -Mark

But I'm not sure we lose the grassroots-type feel even if we had a
paid staff. We still have tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of
people willing to do things for free, even with a paid staff.
Wikimedia has flourished under this volunteer oriented mindset, but I
don't see everyone suddenly saying, "Screw you WMF, you hired some
people, I ain't doing squat." The volunteers would still be there,
and WMF would still enlist the services of them. Or am I wrong?
--LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Don't you think it's kinda neat that Wikimedia is changing the world from
somewhere rather random?

I mean, we're all editing in random places in random countries around the
world. And an edit from El Cerrito, California or Randberg, South Africa is
just as valued on Wikipedia, as one from Washington, is it not?

So if we assign no value to the location of a contributor, why should we
assign value to the location of our founder?

Nick/Zanimum
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 26/05/06, Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We have been talking about this for at least a couple years; the last time
> we did so publicly was
> just mentioned and linked to by Erik. The reason why this is necessary is
> due to the fact that we
> long ago reached the limit on what volunteers alone can accomplish. We have
> therefore been missing
> out on many different potential opportunities (for getting grants, very
> large donations and to
> reach our ultimate goals) simply because we have not had proper staffing.
> And a staff needs a
> person to manage them and the daily aspects of running the organization.
> Simply put, we are
> transitioning from the amateur football club model to a professional
> organization. Staff are an
> investment.
>
> -- mav

You see i really don't like how that was worded (this is not meant at
all to be a personal attack on mav just a warning about what we may
become). " We have been talking about this for at least a couple
years; the last time we did so publicly was just mentioned and linked
to by Erik." I've been lurking and occasionally posting on this list
and others for most of the time it has existed and now that Erik
linked to that thread i do remember it but that is the only previous
mention i remember (i'm not saying there haven't been more, just that
we haven't had a large public debate about it). I think we need to
engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
should be heading and how we should go about it. Espesially if the
direction is towards corpratisation. So far i think the WMF has been
doing the best it can of a difficult job and i don't mean to critisise
anyone personally, I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
whoever. The money that the foundation spends is not the foundation's
but the wikimedia community's (i am not talking in a legal way i am
talking in an ethical way. It was given for the community not the
foundation).

The balance sheets tell me that 60 something percent of money goes to
servers and hardware and the rest goes to other stuff. I don't think
that is a good balance. That is my view. What is the view of most
people in the community? What is the view of most donors? I dunno.
Does anyone? Do all the board members and others who have most to do
with the day to day running of foundation issues think we need a CEO?

paz y amor,
-rjs.

--
DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE!
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html>

Hit me: <http://robin.shannon.id.au> [broken]
Jab me: <robin.shannon@jabber.org.au>
Upgrade to kubuntu linux: <http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/>
Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 5/26/06, Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we need to
> engage anyone who is willing to be engaged in a debate about where we
> should be heading and how we should go about it.

How? Previous public Wikimedia meetings have led nowhere and done
nothing other than highlight how few people in the communities are
interested in _doing_ anything - as opposed to debating on mailing
lists.

> I just think that the future direction of wikimedia
> is up to the community not the board or its officers, staff or
> whoever.

Nice idea... how about you suggest how that might happen? There are
currently two community representatives on the Board, though it's
increasingly obvious that the community are not using either Anthere
or myself to get anything to happen. Anything that does happen comes
through private mailing lists and an increasing number of internal
processes that even Board members don't always have access to.

Angela
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l