Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/1%

1%

  • Problem: The WMF's funding is larger than ever, reaching obscene amounts, and none of that seems to make its way into community support / addressing technical requests. This proposal is simple. Allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team. In 2019–2020, the WMF raised $130M, 1% of that is $1.3M. This is small potatoes for the WMF, but would ACTUALLY FOR ONCE yield tangible impacts on the features the community actually want, rather than on... whatever it is the WMF is spending that money on.
  • Proposed solution: Allocate at least 1% of the WMF yearly budget to the Community Tech team. Hire people. Buy new servers for toolserver. Whatever else needs to be done.
  • Who would benefit: All the community and volunteers, who would finally get the technical support they've been craving for years.
  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: Headbomb (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Hello Headbomb, what is Community Tech team? Thanks, PeterEasthope (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    @PeterEasthope, Community Tech is the team solely responsible for the entire Community Wishlist Survey. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    So the proposal is to allocate 1.3 M$ for this survey. What is the current expenditure? How is the number 1% arrived at? Assuming 1.3 M$ is more than currently spent on the survey, what will be added with the larger investment. Thx, PeterEasthope (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know what the current budget is exactly, but the Community Tech team is apparently 12 people, whom I doubt are assigned full time on this. If we ballpark an average salary of $30/hour, that's roughly $62,500 per full time coder per year, or ballpark $750,000. $1.3M would get us roughly 20 full time coders at that rate. So maybe the proposal should be increase the Community Tech team to 20 full time coders that are specifically assign to deal with community requests. The 1% is symbolic. Headbomb (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Obviously it’s not as simple as $1.3m equating to 20 F/T employees, there’s other overheads & expenses involved aside from salary. It’d definitely be good to see exactly how much is attributed to the CMTT though to weigh it up. Jcshy (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, there's overhead, but it's a ballpark figure. Point if you have $130M annual income, more should be spent on things that aren't PR and feel good initiatives. Headbomb (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do we know what the current percentage of the WMF budget given to the team is? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I was actually considering making a proposal like this myself (I did not think about 1% specifically though, and I don't know if it is an adequate number. The point is that the team has to be bigger in several kinds of resources, perhaps at cost of teams that are not working towards direct community requests). --Base (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could this be formulated more diplomatically? I think it's the most important proposal out here, but starting with the word cancer is not the best strategy to get overwhelming support. 1% is quite modest, if you compare this with the back-of-the-envolope estimate of current spending. Would you consider adding an additional medium-to-long term goal of say 2.5%? Femke (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • +1. Remove the aggressive "cancer", and instead state what the current budgets numbers are for that team, and name their responsabilities or give a link towards those details. How much less than 1% is it? This proposal is basically a signal from the online community to WMF, that transparency/oversight is wanted over what happens to our donations. --Enyavar (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • +1 on the phrasing change, I can handle being tactful if it makes it more likely to get those who disagree onboard, and +1 on bumping the numbers - let's ask for 2%. Two helpful numbers to include would be the amount spent on knowledge equity and the per/year salary of the new CEO (which, for clarity's sake, I don't think is unreasonable, just a good mark of how small the community tech budget is) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Maybe it could be changed to something like "from what has been described as cancer-like". I'd also like to note that just increasing spending by itself never helped anything:
the money also has to be actually useful and it should be spent well and efficiently. All of this could tie in with my proposal below to add a banner at the top of all software-development Wikipedia articles to engage developers which would link to a page/system to organize, streamline and facilitate the development such as via selected tutorials&tasks, making it easier to set the development environment up, badges and rankinglists.
-1 on the proposed phrasing changes so far, that term is well-known and I immediately knew the page it was linked to.
I think we should strive to facilitate maximum volunteer development (some of that could for example turn into payed development over time) and maximum usefulness of both payed and volunteer development (such as focusing mainly on high-priority tasks of community wishlist proposals and phabricator tasks that e.g. decrease running costs, are relatively quick to implement, got much support or would save much editors' time).
--Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In light of these comments, I slightly reworded things, but kept the link. Headbomb (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • An excellent suggestion. We may want to work on the detail but I'd support any of the wordings so far. An organisation as rich as the WMF should not have a resource bottleneck on the thing it was actually created to do. Certes (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • $30/hour is significantly lower than it should be given the higher than US-average number of staff in the Bay area. It also doesn't factor in the additional costs. I know we are going "you can give more than the 1%", but I reckon they're probably already spending about 0.9% on the Team. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a shot in hell of the Wishlist Survey determining WMF staffing or budgets. Not that it's a bad idea for more full-time help. Just saying. -- GreenC (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not determining perhaps, I would see it more like a petition that can go far to mend the relationship between the community and the WMF. Femke (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW, the budget allocated for "Platform Evolution" (defined as "to provide technical systems to support equitable, global growth such as through the addition of a caching center that serves Africa and the Middle East, as well as investing in the technical future of our projects") was increased from US$2.4 million to US$7.9 million in the 2021-2022 WMF Annual Plan. RamzyM (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (1) This is out of scope for the Community Tech Team so this is not the right forum. (2) It's also not in the right ballpark. Even at the middle of San Francisco market rates, the annual total cash comp of this team with taxes and benefits would already be well over $1.3M. czar 19:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We will not get it, but we should keep asking, to make it clear to the WMF what the community thinks their priorities should be. The amunt specified should be increased, as Czar and others have pointed out--Using Nosebagbear's estimate, and realizing it will take time to increase capacity, we should ask for a doubling of between $2 and $3 million this year, increasing as possible in the future. The bottleneck is managerial priorities, not financial unavailability. DGG (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC) .
    I've made an alternative proposal on talk, asking for a doubling, and in more diplomatic terms. The goal of this is to convince the WMF, and I think this type of wording will give us a larger chance of success. Femke (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree in principle. I'll echo what some others have said: the framing of the linked essay is antagonistic to the point of being self-defeating. That's not to say it doesn't have a point in there, but if the goal is to be taken seriously, link somewhere else. There's no shortage of "WMF has a ton of money" links. But yeah, I asked about how to get funding increased at a Community Tech Q&A somewhat recently, and don't recall that I got a clear answer (apologies to those who responded if I'm misremembering). I think perhaps this is something we'll need the Movement Charter folks to throw their weight behind (however much that weight is). It's a clear step the foundation could take which would address the widespread belief that not enough of the budget goes to directly support the community. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We absolutely do need much more funding directed at the technical side of the project. Currently the developers are clearly overworked; a lot of the early decisions have proven to be ineffective or simply bad (see our "amazing" parser, for example). Now we are also facing an increasing number of security threats that, again, cannot be eliminated simply because of how the project was built. This is a major tech issue and it is my wish to get more tech workpower so I believe that this submission should stay in the Community Wishlist. Le Loy 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree too! This will be very good for WMF! Esaïe Prickett (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


The money are not everything. We have the money and job offers. But what are the problems? The error in Wikimedia Mowement and WMF. I think:

  • The normal user don't know about the news in Wikimedia Movement.
  • The normal user don't know about something more about the news on him local wiki, universities, about metawiki, WMF and about the jobs of WMF.
  • Wikimedia Movement and WMF only to wait, wait and wait.
    • I do not read anything about events in the Slovak media in Wikimedia movement. Nothing about job offers.
    • None The day of developers.
    • No promotion in SWAN and him entities.
  • It is the year 2022, none the year 2030. We don't have the Global Council.
  • Nobody is looking for / addressing talents.
  • Money-results: where is the report for the past year? If a person sees that it is useful, he makes an interesting contribution, wants to help or join.
  • IT people are not much.
  • Job offers:
    • None global content search.
    • If I am interested in projects and not programming languages?
    • What is the labor price?
    • None special contact / e-mail.
  • WMF presentation of works is totally like just an institution.
  • Why should I work for WMF? WMF is one of the other organizations why I should work.
  • Nobody investing in talent people.
    • Who needs a detailed knowledge of Wikidata or other languages? In him normal life doesn't need know very detailed. He doesn't generate any complex analyses.
  • Is working for WMF very special? Or can I use knowledge elsewhere?
  • International work can be discouraging.
  • Tech/News – it's Tech news (People can create some small context), or the report with the technical news (Very formal, narrow shot)?

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Voting

  •   Support * Mustafdesam * very useful 19:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Sounds reasonable. Helps those who support wiki. Johnny0634Cashx (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Johnny0634Cashx: Courtesy notice that if you intend to support, you must use the {{support}} template or else it isn't counted. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Not sure that 1% would be enough, but an expanded community tech team would definitely be a good way forward. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support * Pppery * it has begun 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Moral support, even if we should be petitioning for more Femke (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Base (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Arnd (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Andyrom75 (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support See also en:WP:CANCER Qwerfjkl (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Legooverlord11 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support especially if it's combined with the proposed banner for more volunteer development of MediaWiki. I'd support substantially more than 1% of funds (it seems that was a symbolic figure anyway). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support More like 3%, but this is in the spirit. Sea Cow (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support 1% is nothing like enough but it's a start. Certes (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Betseg (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support the spirit of devoting substantially more resources to community support, although I'd like to see more financials on the current situation to understand exactly what 1% would mean. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   SupportHulged (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support JopkeB (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support tech team needs to be expanded, tech is our foundation Gnangarra (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support SCIdude (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Respublik (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --YodinT 10:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Not sure if 1% is the correct number... but an increased funding for the tech team *does* make sense! Šedý (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Something like 5% is reasonable, but let's start at least somewhere. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support More than 1% --Kusurija (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Terber (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Mvuijlst (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support BSMIsEditing (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The fact the WMF management aren't investing more into technical and community projects and requests is infuriating especially given how much money there is behind them Ed6767 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Hemantha (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Aca (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Mbrickn (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   SupportSHEIKH (Talk) 17:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Nebotigatreba7 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support —— Eric LiuTalk 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Not conviced by the agressive phrasing of the proposal, but I agree we need more investment in technical aspects. — Jules* Talk 18:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support KennethSweezy (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support and please keep the cancer rethoric, it is on point. --SSneg (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support 1% is not enough but I support the sentiment josecurioso ❯❯❯ Tell me! 00:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Agus Damanik (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ali Imran Awan (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Fano (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support F. Riedelio (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support«« Man77 »» [de] 14:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support in principle, 1% is too low. MER-C 17:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support JPxG (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Libcub (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support More money to tech teams is a great idea anywhere. I like WMF in all aspects and I have never been concerned with how donations are managed but I do not deny that every good investment proposal related to this subject is beneficial (benign) for everyone. From here in Brazil, without going into the merits of good financial management or not, I agree! Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Qazwsx777 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Needs to be at least 2% Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support FenyMufyd (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Bluerasberry (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Donors EXPECT that their donation goes toward making more quality content, and not PR and obscure "feel good" initiatives Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Modest Genius (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support IOIOI (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support JAn Dudík (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support IAmChaos (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Shooterwalker (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support. The Community Tech team was created to address serious problems with Foundation's software process and priorities, but it shouldn't exist at all. The Foundation's core job is to maintain and improve our platform, and the Foundation as a whole should be willing or even eager to collaborate with the community in understanding how to do that. If we can't fix that fundamental problem, increasing Community Tech funding is at least constructive. Community Tech was clearly given insufficient resources to handle even the token mission that was promised for it. Alsee (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Dave Braunschweig (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support MONUMENTA (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Trey314159 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Labdajiwa (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support SCP-2000 08:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Thibaut (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On principle, it is a really bad idea to hard-code funding allocations. Creates laziness and bureaucracy, and once you have created interests hanging from (what now would be a 1%), these become nigh impossible to revert, even after there is no longer need for whatever was mandated in the very first place. Opposed on principle. XavierItzm (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Agreed. All open source projects have paid developers, and with the funding that WP has at its disposal, adding (more?) paid developers to the staff to accomplish some of the work that volunteers can't/won't do, is needed. Hires an editor (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Browk2512 (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose KingAntenor (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Serg!o (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Stratocaster47 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support for at least 1%. There are tons of favorable tasks lying on phabricator for years that require too much work for a volunteer. WhitePhosphorus (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Financial support for qualified Etymology verifiers and the Wiki Bots as well: in other words; for all that have [thank] after the heading of their edits for the public to thank if they wish. A number of etymology edits are still worrying, as particularly in the diversely semantic proposed links between Proto-Germanic and Proto-Indo-European, as in the cases of the origins of CLOTH and WOOD, et cetera. Werdna Yrneh Yarg (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Mitar (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support — MrDolomite • Talk 05:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Prof.Flip (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The capabilities and functioning of the platforms must be the primary concern, not PR and parties. Silver hr (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support WikiAviator (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Paucabot (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support DanCherek (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Reywas92 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Wutsje (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Xavier Dengra (MESSAGES) 23:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support in spirit, even though this is outside the remit of this teams' survey. I do think we are heavily underinvesting in bugfixing and basic quality of the software for the (non-reader) communities and that we should focus much more on their day to day experience. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support with the understanding that '1%' is a symbolic figure. Headbomb (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support MattieTK (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Donors expect funding to mainly go to server parks and technical development. Tomastvivlaren (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Thingofme (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support - Darwin Ahoy! 14:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ealdgyth (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Exilexi (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Waldyrious (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Sun (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ynhockey (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support --Emaus (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ciencia Al Poder (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I have doubts with this: 1% is not enough. And I wouldn't like to have a %1 for ever. We can have much more. Theklan (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Khairul hazim (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Ciao • Bestoernesto 19:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Actorsofiran (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Molestash (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Toadspike (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good, so good. Pablo131415 (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support This proposal is completely unfeasible but the actual number of successfully completed wishes is abysmal and needs to be improved //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ryse93 (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support the general principle of this particular team getting more money. Not sure whether it should be 1% or more than that, given the analysis done somewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Tom Ja (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support PtolemyXV (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support 325 proposals this year; hundreds of hours of volunteer discussion about them all. And...? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support CrystalBlacksmith (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support If your money is too much, give some to the poor. More than 1% is ok too. --Ssr (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Itsfini (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support I've seen a small amount of negative comments on social media during annual funding campaigns, specifically about WMF. This, combined with PR/transparency, can make a huge impact, I think, and encourage more people to contribute (and I would imagine, to apply for jobs!). paul2520 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support General Douglas (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support As Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects are growing and getting more and more recognition, we need to be able to protect them from big bugs, hacking, etc. So, yes, more money into this makes sense.--Eunostos (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support DontWannaDoThis (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Bop34 (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Ján Kepler (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Tinux (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support β16 - (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support George6996 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support TheFrog001 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   SupportDaxServer (t · c) 16:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support We desperately need way more resources spent on technical issues and refactoring. Le Loy 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Sunpriat (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Marcok (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support 1% is not enough. Make it 2% at least. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Our donators invariably want to "Keep Wikipedia Running". As the content is volunteer driven, that translates in my eyes to improving the technology it runs on and making it easier to run. WormTT 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Blablubbs (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC), but rather 5%, at least 10 times as much as is spend on branding.
  •   Support Maybe this way CommTech can finally deliver on stuff they are obligated (for the lack of better word) to take each year. [With no hard feelings to CommTech people, they are awesome and deserve more funding and more experienced colleagues.] stjn[ru] 17:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)