Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard
|←Board of Trustees||Board noticeboard||Archives →|
|Board of Trustees' noticeboard. This is a message board for discussing issues related to Wikimedia Foundation governance and policies, and related Board work. Please post new messages at the bottom of the page and sign them.Welcome to the|
- Link to previous discussion: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/Archives/2019#Fifth column.
On 26 April 1989 the official organ of the Chinese communist party spoke out against democracy. As the thirtieth anniversary of the massacre approaches Wikipedia has been cut off - we've not heard from Anna Frodesiak since 23 April. In this country, expect people like Nigel Farage to continue speaking out against democracy - Leavers secured less than 30% of the vote in the EU election, but to hear him speak you would think they had secured a landslide.
Proposal to amend bylaws regarding Founder's seat vacancyEdit
The current bylaws, section 3 (F) reads as follows:
Community Founder Trustee Position. The Board may appoint Jimmy Wales as Community Founder Trustee for a three-year term. The Board may reappoint Wales as Community Founder Trustee for successive three-year terms (without a term limit). In the event that Wales is not appointed as Community Founder Trustee, the position will remain vacant, and the Board shall not fill the vacancy.
I propose amending the bylaws such that if Jimbo is unwilling, unable, or unavailable to fill the position, that it convert to a community elected seat. In fact given the significance of the position, I would propose that it convert to two community elected seats.
Just to clarify, I have no desire for the Founder's seat to become vacant. It merely occurred to me that it would be a Bad if the board were to shrink in such a fashion, losing such a critical voice for the Community. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Alsee: I fully support this and have added it to Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2020/Questions. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
WMF spending increaseEdit
Prior to the last board election of community-elected seats, a question was asked to candidates on acceptable limits of budgetary growth. Certain (now-)trustees expressed the view that continued rapid growth would be problematic. ("I think that a budgetary growth of more than 20% in the case of an organization of the WMF’s size would definitely be dangerous and possibly unhealthy (unless there was a very clear need for a certain vital project or investment)." - User:Pundit, "Continued exponential growth is not a realistic possibility. When I was previously on the board I supported stabilizing spending at its than current levels. ... With respect to hard-ish limits, the FDC has one set at 20% but even that IMO is too great with respect to the WMF. I would find it hard to imagine a situation where the foundation would need an increase in budget greater than that. Staff take time to on-board. For a request greater than 15% a movement discussion should be required." - User:Doc James).
Four months ago, the members of the board unanimously voted to approve a >20% budget increase for the 2019-20 fiscal year. Not only was there no movement discussion, this was the first year in nearly a decade when the annual plan wasn't even publicly disclosed. (We did have a get a brief presentation on it, but the plan itself appears to be confidential.) I would like to know: Was this an extreme situation, where there was an unusual great need for more spending? Was there a very clear need for a certain vital project? It's looking more and more like the WMF plans perpetual exponential growth, and I think it would be helpful to clarify the reasons for the unexpected spending increases.
User:Raystorm also had this response to the same question on budgetary growth: "Ultimately, our publicly discussed annual plan and budget discussed with the communities remain the best way to manage our spending." This year there was no public discussion with the communities on the annual plan, nor was there any FDC to look things over, so I think it's very important that some explanation of the reasons for the decision be made public. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking the question. Nemo 08:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- User:Yair rand 2017/2018 expenses were 78.8M, 2018/2019 expenses were 92.94M, 2019/2020 projection is 111.7 M.
- It is basically a 20% increase (slightly less if averaged over the last two years).
- Agree it is fast expansion and would not want to see any greater than this at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I stick to the opinion I expressed that going beyond 20% growth is dangerous and should only happen in exceptional circumstances in our movement. It is sometimes justifiable in smaller organizations (e.g. for a small affiliate just hiring the first staff member can easily increase the spending to a growth of even over 50%), but for the WMF such a rapid increase would definitely call for a closer scrutiny. Currently, we are at about 20% growth. Naturally, our strategic exercise may call for larger budgets, but every single initiative needs to be scrutinized carefully, as overall growing faster than 20% per annum is dangerous. Pundit (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Proposal for a "budget review committee"Edit
I think that a group which is similar to the FDC should be given the mandate, resources, time, and full access into WMF's finances to conduct deep dives into WMF's budgets and spending every year, and should publish extensive reports and recommendations to the WMF Board and the community. This is a major job and would consume dozens or hundreds of hours of time if done thoroughly. The group that does this should probably be relatively small, have significant expertise in budgets, and probably given modest compensation for what will be an intensive consulting job. The members could be elected in a similar manner to stewards. ↠Pine (✉) 21:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)