Fundraising committee/2006/Motions/Failed

Motion to appoint advisors and consultants

The committee hereby appoints these people as advisors to the committee:

Jimbo Wales (Chair of the Wikimedia Board)
Eloquence (started the CafePress shop, able to mobilize the community)
Samuel Klein (member of the Communications committee and Special projects committee, possible liaison)
Anthony DiPierro (knowledgeable about tax-related issues)
Mario Benvenuti (M7) (Italian Wikipedian can help in coordinating translations, Wikimedia Italia treasurer)
Aphaia (very helpful with translation)
Michael Becker (knowledgeable in the technical aspects of our fundraising system ; in fact, he helped develop it)
Florence Devouard (board representative)

The committee hereby appoints these people as consultants to the committee:

Brion VIBBER (technical consultant; Chief Technical Officer, drafted)
Alison Wheeler (Chair of Wikimedia UK and holder of an MBA with NPO experience)

Voting

Support:

~~Daniel Mayer 02:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Copied from parent page. Each person asked and accepted~~[reply]
Ben Yates 05:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex756 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) I did not have any input into chosing these people but I have no objections to having them helping us. That is great that they want to help with fundraising. It is not an easy area to work in, not glamourous at all (unless someone helps score a big $1M from some dot com millionaire - hint, hint).[reply]

Oppose:

Austin 01:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danny 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You vote as a member but you struck out your name on the membership list. You can't have it both ways. --Daniel Mayer 15:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was my hope that this list would pass quickly and not cause a stir. Since it has caused a stir and has not passed quickly, I call for a redrafting of the list. --Daniel Mayer 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The committee hasn't even defined its own scope, much less roles for this proposed list of "advisors" and "consultants"—or, for that matter, the conditions for this resolution. We're electing congressmen before ratifying a constitution, and the only two options are "these people" and "nobody?" Austin 22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is that this group of people would help us work on creating the scope. The members are not well-suited to do this task alone - more input is needed. Also remember that the members were selected before the scope was set. It was my hope that this list would be uncontroversial enough to appoint en masse. But if you want to break it out, then we can talk about particular candidates you take issue with via email. But really, we need to get to work. -- Daniel Mayer 01:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, see our mandate: "These initial members will meet to appoint advisors and consultants and to determine who will be chair and secretary. Delegations and scope will be developed per meetings of members with help and advice from advisors and consultants. The fundraising committee will suggest the appointment of additional members to the board at a later date." From wikimedia:Resolution_fundraising_committee/membership So the process the board agreed to, has us appointing advisors and consultants and using their input to form our scope and delegations. The Continental Congress existed before the Constitution as well. :) --Daniel Mayer 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree that appointing these ten people is the way to proceed. I must oppose. Austin 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please explain. Either way, please help form our delegations. There will be more work for members if we have no advisors or consultants. Time to get to work. --Daniel Mayer 12:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these people are good people to have around. I see no reason to appoint them and I am glad that mav has suggested them. I don't think it would be inappropriate for anyone to suggest other people as well. As far as I am concerned the more people we get involved the better. This is not some elite clique but a working group of people who want to figure out ways to get more money (and maybe other things as well) for something we all support. Let us not lose sight of that). Alex756 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind again that most of the work of a committee should not be hidden. For any public activity, anyone can be an advisor. Absolutely anyone you accept to listen and work with.

Second, I agree with Austin that a basic mission statement of the committee should be drafted even before considering appointing people. You need to see what you will take care of before knowing who you need. And only after a basic statement is drafted can you contact people or seek opportunities. The statement can be refined later on. Note that you may perfectly create the statement on meta and receive help from many of us. The people you listed as well as others. A committee goal is not secret, right ?

Third, I also agree with Austin that it makes no sense to appoint advisor and consultants with no definition of what these terms recover. You first need to explain what those guys rights and responsabilities will be and along which rules. Right now, what's the difference between these two terms ?

Contrary to what Mav says, I think that list is actually pretty controversial. In particular since some members are listed on it, which were not approved as primary members of the committee. It is a bit as if you removed them from the original list to get the committee approved, only to add them back again later Mav. As a reminder, the board can veto members.

Anthere 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the committee will work in public. However, given the huge number of potential people who could comment, it is necessary to limit at least some discussion to a selected group. Almost all the communication will be public - not always via two way communication, but at least via archived discussions.

The basic mission statement of the committee has already been approved of by the board "The Board directs the committee take all steps necessary to develop strategic plans for fundraising." My hope, was that the advisors and consultants would help us with the more complete delegations along with what their roles should be. I don't think that the limited number of people who are formal members can do all that on their own w/o advice and consultation.

You do have a good point that anything that the members come up with now can be modified once the advisors and consultants are appointed. However, the board approved this in the most recent resolution about the fundcom "Delegations and scope will be developed per meetings of members with help and advice from advisors and consultants." So, the board has already directed the order of things; we appoint the advisors and consultants before we finalize our delegations and scope. If this list fails, then we need to create another (perhaps after we define the roles). Of course, the board can veto anybody we appoint (member, advisor or consultant). --Daniel Mayer 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if a member objects to one person, and not the rest, or only agrees with a couple of those being advisors and consultants? Shouldn't they be voted on individually? --Rory096 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It looks like we will need to do that. I had hoped this would be a fast motion. --Daniel Mayer 12:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are advisors and consultants? They are not members of the committee. I have no problem with anyone being an "advisor" or a "consultant" legally that means nothing. We are not paying anyone to be in these positions and I do not think that voting on a motion to have people be advisors and consultants is giving them anything. Spending a lot of time on this issue seems a ridiculous waste of time. Is this committee going to do its job or get bogged down in some kind of wierd political fight about whose name is listed where? I have been trying to help Wikipedia with its fundraising problems for a while now and all I get is dysfunctional responses; it is just like the famous trademark committee that I have wasted my time trying to communicate with, the people in charge are not being responsive. I think you "people" better start realizing that if we don't start acting like adults rather than children who are always fighting about who should get what barnstar that Wikipedia is going to look like a bunch of crazy people. I wanted to join the fundraising committee to help Wikipedia, just like I wanted to help with legal issues, I did not do it to get myself "listed" on some page, in the wacky Wikipedia universe. If I am going to have to spend my time dealing with everyone disagreeing about who a committee can talk to about trying to help Wikipedia perhaps I should donate my time to Greenpeace or some other organization that is actually helping people rather than getting bogged down in ego battles all the time. This is what frustrates me about Wikipedia, stuff that I would expect from a bunch of grandmothers arguing over who is going to bake a cake for the next meeting is coming from a bunch of hi-tech innovators? This is why I quit the AMA, no one listens to reason, everyone gets bogged down in ego issues and thinks that somehow because they have edited a few wiki pages that they are suddenly experts on everything. I am a real expert and I have credentials and experience, not someone who has sold a few t-shirts at a rock concert. Come on now, let us get down to work or I am just going to take my expertise somewhere else, I am sure there are many other people who want to become "famous" members of the "famous" fundraising committee -- if they give you any money, or help you get any money, is another story all together. I am not here to raise a few thousand dollars by changing our t-shirt supplier from cafepress to thinkgeek, I am here to try and help raise millions, if not billions, if you want to raise thousands, have a bake sale and let me use my precious free time for something valuable (I normally bill my time at $360 an hour, or $6 per minute so I can stop wasting my valuable time and just go make money and donate to the foundation through paypal, or better yet send my check to St. Petersburg so paypal does not get any fee). Alex756 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree completely with you Alex and am also tired of ego battles. All I care about is organizing a good and effective committee in a reasonable amount of time. We certainly need, absolutely need, you or somebody with similar qualifications to be on the committee, if not lead it. Since some people think this motion was made out of process, I will try to draft a process so we can proceed. --Daniel Mayer 12:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]