Talk:Donations:Putting your money where your mouth is

re: How can we get funding for particular projects

The upshot is, in practice, money doesn't talk when it comes to volunteer developers, and $20,000 doesn't talk very far when it comes to non-volunteer developers. The developers balance their interests with their view of the areas most needing attention and allocate their time accordingly. A low urgency task is very likely to wait, even if money is offered. Developers in general haven't been interested enough in wikidata, in part because it's more interesting to those writing this page than the wide community and broad range of projects. It's of some interest to me but not enough for me to stop doing other things to write it. Jamesday 13:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A volunteer developer is in a way a dictator; he/she decides what he/she likes to do. We are fortunate in that the work done has been beneficial for wikipedia. Those who are outside of wikipedia have the wrong end of the stick. There needs are not adressed. When they find a programmer willing to work for EUR 1500,- a month and do a big job that takes three months to write it is considered heresy and threats are issued that the software will not be maintained as it is not wikipedia. GerardM 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As a volunteer do what you like, but do not mind that we see our needs fulfilled as well. Denying the needs of others does not make you right or righteous.

re: How to target small contributions

Donations have worked extremely well so far. A bounty on programming to support paid membership things has remained unclaimed. You can form your own view on whether developers are likely to be positively influenced by things that influences, given the apparent lack of developer interest in supporting it, even for money. Jamesday 13:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Donations have worked in financing new hardware and bandwith. It has not helped special needs of projects other than wikipedia. A case in point is that there is not even code to link to wikispecies :(

The software HAS been claimed but, no start was made on this code. As it is well known that Tim has said that he will do it, who is going to give it a go ? GerardM 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Making a donation (for ex. during fundraising drives) does NOT make you a member of the Fondation. Membership is and must be (imho) identified (ie. not anonymous, you decide to become a MEMBER of the Foundation, and publicly support it). Membership fee can be, of course, topped by a donation just as you suggested, a donation that would be targeted at whatever the member/donator feels like.

The question is, where do membership fees go? For me it should be like this:

1. Membership fees go to structural organisation (help promotion, pay developers, a secretary, what do I know, anything that helps sustain the Foundation and allows for smooth running of the projects, rather on an administrative/development point of view.
2. Donations on top of membership fees go to whatever section of the budget the donator feels like giving it to.
3. There are spontaneous donations (such as originated by fundraising drives, or people waking up one day thinking "I am going to give") which can be targeted at whatever the donator feels like, but DO NOT give automatic membership.

HOWEVER: 5 to 10% of ALL donations (the on-top-of-membership ones as well as the spontaneous one) go to structural organisation.

Of course, if that money (the one allotted to structural organisation) is way too much to run the thing, the Board (or whoever else is in charge) is qualified to give back that money to the projects (and direct it to whichever section of the budget most needs it).notafish }<';> 13:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When people donate money during a fundraiser, it is cool to make them a member at the same time. Technically it means that you have to have a code that indicates that it is ALSO a membership fee. This means that if a membership fee is 20 EUR and the donation is 100 EUR, the money to be added to the fundraiser is 80 EUR. The 20 EUR in the mean time is welcome. As important is that with new members you add to your organisation.

How membership fees are spend, is in principle NOT up to the person paying the fee. How additional monies are to be spend is. GerardM 14:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree on your first point. I don't think it should be just 'cool' to become a member. Membership should be a decision made carefully, at any chosen time, not just a thing that happens if/when you give. People expect (at least I would) during fundraising drives, to give the full amount to whatever the fundraising drive is aimed at, and can't be coerced into membership. It also helps differenciating people who are just passers by and give because they were there at the right time from people who are truly interested in the life of the Wikimedia projects and their development. And I believe, in the long run, that being able to rely on people who repeatedly renew their membership is more interesting than just adding to members mumbers for the sake of it. This said, i totally agree with your second point :) notafish }<';> 14:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Why we need to be open to money issues

One donation type which interests me is one where the money is held in trust until the board is free of any voting member positions which can't be voted on by all contributors to, donors to or users of the projects. With a fallback to another foundation if the money isn't claimed within two years. That is, one deliberately structured to favor democratic principles and discourage outside financial influence on board votes. Basically: to stop any person or company from buying a seat on the board, or being influenced only by a subset of the contributors to the projects, by any means. Jamesday 13:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are on about. The board is the board and there is no special place for people who contribute money. So stop waffling. GerardM 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another donation type which interests me is one where the money may only be spent on neutral things. That is: it may not favor any technical or licensing approach at all but must be completely neutral and must be used to select the most cost-effective solution. Jamesday 13:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Foundation has principles about this, the fact is that only .ogg files are used proves that point. I do not expect these points of view to change. As the projects that people will be able to earmark money to, this is not an issue as the board will only allow the earmarking of funds for projects that have its blessing. GerardM 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another donation type which intersts me is one where for any funds over 10% spent on things other than equipment, bandwidth or hosting costs, 1/10th of the excess is to be paid to the EFF and 1/10th to the Creative Commons instead of the Foundation. That is, one designed to encourage the core purpose of the Foundation and efficient use of donations and discourage spending on other things. Jamesday 13:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jamesday, when you do something that people payed money for it to be done, you can assign that money as you see fit. All the other money is not yours. So if you do a job valued at EUR 5000,- you can give it all away to the EFF or whatever. It is your money, you pay the taxes as the foundation has to legally state it as income when money leaves the organisation. GerardM 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)