(no subject)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
40 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(no subject)

The Uninvited Co., Inc
<<<Michael Bimmler wrote

Are you seriously comparing cats to children and other dependents?
Focusing on children:
In my opinion, a mature organisation recognises that there are persons
(I don't say "women", I say "persons", incl. men) who have children to
look after but nevertheless want to have a job / have a career / work
in a NGO.
You basically state "If you have children and can't pay a babysitter,
you shouldn't be allowed to be a board member" and I consider this to
be rather an affront and a quite out-of-time opinion.
>>>

I have kids at home.  I travel for my job.  When I do so, I am not
reimbursed for dependent care.

Steve


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Jimmy Wales

On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:54 AM, The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:
> I have kids at home.  I travel for my job.  When I do so, I am not
> reimbursed for dependent care.

But you presumably draw a salary for your job.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Jan-Bart de Vreede
In reply to this post by The Uninvited Co., Inc
Hi,

This is too important for me to keep out of. I work for a Dutch public
organisation as you might know. If I have to work or travel at a time
when I would normally be able to take care of my children (which would
be every friday as I have a four day workweek) I can get these costs
reimbursed if need be (this actually hasn't happened more than once in 5
years I think, as I can usually solve this). This is only reasonable in
my opinion.

It would be a shame if a modern organisation like the WMF were to fall
back on standard practices which would effectively limit the capacity of
people to be a part of the board. I think that the elections should
determine who goes on the board, not the financial limits of the candidates

Jan-Bart de Vreede

PS: Although these views are my personal views and not those of the
Board of Trustees in this mail I am pretty sure that 100% of the board
agrees with this, how is that for a disclaimer ;)




The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:

> <<<Michael Bimmler wrote
>
> Are you seriously comparing cats to children and other dependents?
> Focusing on children:
> In my opinion, a mature organisation recognises that there are persons
> (I don't say "women", I say "persons", incl. men) who have children to
> look after but nevertheless want to have a job / have a career / work
> in a NGO.
> You basically state "If you have children and can't pay a babysitter,
> you shouldn't be allowed to be a board member" and I consider this to
> be rather an affront and a quite out-of-time opinion.
>  
>
> I have kids at home.  I travel for my job.  When I do so, I am not
> reimbursed for dependent care.
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>  


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Sebastian Moleski
In reply to this post by The Uninvited Co., Inc
On 7/9/07, The Uninvited Co., Inc <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> <<<Michael Bimmler wrote
>
> Are you seriously comparing cats to children and other dependents?
> Focusing on children:
> In my opinion, a mature organisation recognises that there are persons
> (I don't say "women", I say "persons", incl. men) who have children to
> look after but nevertheless want to have a job / have a career / work
> in a NGO.
> You basically state "If you have children and can't pay a babysitter,
> you shouldn't be allowed to be a board member" and I consider this to
> be rather an affront and a quite out-of-time opinion.
> >>>
>
> I have kids at home.  I travel for my job.  When I do so, I am not
> reimbursed for dependent care.


If you get paid halfway decently, I think it's justifiable to expect you to
take care of your dependent's care on your own while traveling on business.
If you're volunteering your time without compensation, it should be in the
organization's best interest to make sure that such volunteering doesn't
create an undue burden on the volunteers. Otherwise, the only people able to
volunteer for your organization are people who are financially independent.
While that is certainly a possible strategy, I doubt it's suitable for
Wikimedia.

Sebastian

P.S. Could you please retain the subject in your responses so it's easy to
identify to which e-mail/thread you're responding?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Dan Rosenthal

On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:

>  Otherwise, the only people able to
> volunteer for your organization are people who are financially  
> independent.

Uh, that's a good thing. You don't want people who rely on their  
board position for their finances. Every board I have ever been on,  
known someone personally who has been on, has disallowed it.  The WMF  
board is a volunteer position. That means you chose to do it. Nobody  
held a gun to your head and said "Join the board". As such, the  
applying member should take their children into consideration: can  
they support them while sitting on the board or not?



On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Reimbursement of board expenses is quite important to
> ensuring that people are able to serve without their service being a
> financial burden.

Child care is not a board expense. Child care is a personal expense.  
The struggle of the stay-at-home single parent is not unique,  
millions of people are undergoing it. They do not receive reimbursed  
child care. Working parents generally do not either. Why should a  
board member?

Lets remember what the purpose of the board is: to guide the WMF  
organization. It is NOT to take financial care of the board member's  
families, and it is NOT fiscally responsible to do so.

-Dan Rosenthal.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Brad Patrick
I think, though, that the importance of this discussion is an ideal, as
Jimmy described.  Rather than solely be an opportunity for the rich, people
from all walks of life and financial means should be able to contribute,
including as a board member.  (This is very much outside the norm of most
American charitable boards).  I'm not stating my own position here, just
saying that is what I think Jimmy meant.

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>
> >  Otherwise, the only people able to
> > volunteer for your organization are people who are financially
> > independent.
>
> Uh, that's a good thing. You don't want people who rely on their
> board position for their finances. Every board I have ever been on,
> known someone personally who has been on, has disallowed it.  The WMF
> board is a volunteer position. That means you chose to do it. Nobody
> held a gun to your head and said "Join the board". As such, the
> applying member should take their children into consideration: can
> they support them while sitting on the board or not?
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Reimbursement of board expenses is quite important to
> > ensuring that people are able to serve without their service being a
> > financial burden.
>
> Child care is not a board expense. Child care is a personal expense.
> The struggle of the stay-at-home single parent is not unique,
> millions of people are undergoing it. They do not receive reimbursed
> child care. Working parents generally do not either. Why should a
> board member?
>
> Lets remember what the purpose of the board is: to guide the WMF
> organization. It is NOT to take financial care of the board member's
> families, and it is NOT fiscally responsible to do so.
>
> -Dan Rosenthal.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Dan Rosenthal
(preface: i know this is not your position.)

But that's just it, why should we be outside the norm of American  
charitable boards? Ok yeah, we have some differences, collaborative  
wiki, web 2.0, etc. etc. It's still a board, and boards have certain  
requirements to be run effectively, and one of those is the financial  
independence of the board members from the organization they serve.

Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying  
things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the  
ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.  
Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT  
purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your  
electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or  
your family member's lunch budgets. Those are not the purview of the  
foundation as an entity. Only getting you to the destination, giving  
you a place there to stay and conduct your business, and getting you  
back home. Child care has nothing to do with that.

If dependent reimbursement is given out as a benefit or gift to the  
board, rather than a staple of function, that's something completely  
different. But lets be perfectly honest: there's no evidence that the  
foundation is in a financial position to be giving benefits and gifts  
like that,.

-Dan Rosenthal
On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:

> I think, though, that the importance of this discussion is an  
> ideal, as
> Jimmy described.  Rather than solely be an opportunity for the  
> rich, people
> from all walks of life and financial means should be able to  
> contribute,
> including as a board member.  (This is very much outside the norm  
> of most
> American charitable boards).  I'm not stating my own position here,  
> just
> saying that is what I think Jimmy meant.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Andrew Gray
On 09/07/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying
> things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the
> ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.
> Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT
> purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your
> electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or
> your family member's lunch budgets.

The difference here is that childcare is an additional expense; it is
an expense that would not be incurred had you not gone away. You'd pay
your heating bills or buy your partner's meals *regardless*, even if
you stayed home; if you normally provide childcare for your children
but cannot for the duration of the travel because of this commitment,
then it is entirely reasonable for the employer [or whoever] to
consider that a valid expense.

It may not be *common*, but it certainly isn't absurd.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Hoi,
The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant up to a
point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the American
norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law stops giving
us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we are allowed
to do so.

We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to do a
mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then another
bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.

The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the grand
scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board members put
into their vocation it is a steal.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> (preface: i know this is not your position.)
>
> But that's just it, why should we be outside the norm of American
> charitable boards? Ok yeah, we have some differences, collaborative
> wiki, web 2.0, etc. etc. It's still a board, and boards have certain
> requirements to be run effectively, and one of those is the financial
> independence of the board members from the organization they serve.
>
> Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying
> things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the
> ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.
> Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT
> purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your
> electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or
> your family member's lunch budgets. Those are not the purview of the
> foundation as an entity. Only getting you to the destination, giving
> you a place there to stay and conduct your business, and getting you
> back home. Child care has nothing to do with that.
>
> If dependent reimbursement is given out as a benefit or gift to the
> board, rather than a staple of function, that's something completely
> different. But lets be perfectly honest: there's no evidence that the
> foundation is in a financial position to be giving benefits and gifts
> like that,.
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Brad Patrick wrote:
>
> > I think, though, that the importance of this discussion is an
> > ideal, as
> > Jimmy described.  Rather than solely be an opportunity for the
> > rich, people
> > from all walks of life and financial means should be able to
> > contribute,
> > including as a board member.  (This is very much outside the norm
> > of most
> > American charitable boards).  I'm not stating my own position here,
> > just
> > saying that is what I think Jimmy meant.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Andrew Lih
On 7/9/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant up to a
> point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the American
> norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law stops giving
> us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we are allowed
> to do so.
>
> We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
> community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to do a
> mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then another
> bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.
>
> The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the grand
> scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board members put
> into their vocation it is a steal.

This is the first time I've heard of being a board member as a "vocation."

Maybe you might want to elaborate on this?

-Andrew

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Vocation: "A vocation is an occupation, either professional or voluntary,
that is seen more to those who carry it out than simply financial reward.
Vocations can be seen as providing a psychological or spiritual need for the
worker, and are often assumed to carry some form of altruistic intent. The
term can also be used to describe any occupation for which a person is
specifically gifted, and usually implies that the worker has a form of
"calling" for the task."

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 7/9/07, Andrew Lih <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 7/9/07, GerardM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant up to
> a
> > point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the American
> > norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law stops
> giving
> > us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we are
> allowed
> > to do so.
> >
> > We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
> > community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to do a
> > mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then another
> > bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.
> >
> > The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the grand
> > scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board members
> put
> > into their vocation it is a steal.
>
> This is the first time I've heard of being a board member as a "vocation."
>
> Maybe you might want to elaborate on this?
>
> -Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Bryan Tong Minh
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...] The struggle of the stay-at-home single parent is not unique,
> millions of people are undergoing it. They do not receive reimbursed
> child care. Working parents generally do not either. [...]

Well, they are here. I understand that this is not the case everywhere
in the world, especially in the USA. But the WMF a global
organization, and we should take into consideration which standards we
should apply.

Bryan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Erik Moeller-4
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Lets remember what the purpose of the board is: to guide the WMF
> organization. It is NOT to take financial care of the board member's
> families, and it is NOT fiscally responsible to do so.

Florence has led the organization through difficult times and has
always put as much time into the role as required, with _no_ personal
compensation whatsoever. She gets a few hundred dollars a year to help
her take care of her children while she is attending Board meetings.
Reimbursing her for her dependent care during those times is both
ethical and necessary.

Thank you Florence for continuing to volunteer your free time for the
organization, and for putting up with this kind of nonsense.

--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3

On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:07 PM, GerardM wrote:

> Hoi,
> The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant  
> up to a
> point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the  
> American
> norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law  
> stops giving
> us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we  
> are allowed
> to do so.
>


We are an American registered corporation. Because of that, we are  
obliged to follow American laws, and abide by American standards.  
Want to do things the euro way? Work for Wikimedia UK, or Wikimedia  
Germany.

> We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
> community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to  
> do a
> mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then  
> another
> bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.
>
(disclaimer: this is not directed at any members of the board past or  
present in particular)

I would rather have a bright kid who has a relevant professional  
degree and knows how to do the job of a board member than a parent  
with no such professional degree, and no experience being on a board  
of trustees. Come on, we already know the board, by their own  
admission, are operating outside the way they should ideally be, by  
having to micromanage staff and act as a "working" board. Would you  
rather have people who don't see what's wrong with that? Or would you  
rather have a board of professionals that will expand Wikimedia  
projects and ensure its financial, legal, and positional safety?

> The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the  
> grand
> scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board  
> members put
> into their vocation it is a steal.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM

It's not 100% about the cost. It's about limiting expenses, and it's  
about making the board a job of service, not a job of perks, or a job  
of resume building.

-Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Erik Moeller-4
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Come on, we already know the board, by their own
> admission, are operating outside the way they should ideally be, by
> having to micromanage staff and act as a "working" board. Would you
> rather have people who don't see what's wrong with that?

We know exactly what's wrong with that, and that's why we fixed it.

--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Absolutely right. That's what her job description as chairwoman is.  
If she were not doing that, she would have been removed from the  
position.

It still does not entitle her to childcare expenses. Those have  
NOTHING to do with her direct function of being on the board. They  
are a secondary expense, one that when she accepted the board  
position, continued to remain her responsibility.

I find it quite disturbing Erik that you call our discussion on the  
travel policy, one that was referred to this list by Florence, who  
has already thanked us for the feed back ("thank you for the  
feedback" in email to Luna Santin), that you call it nonsense.  
Discussion and constructive criticism is not nonsense, and never has  
been. It's that kind of thinking which is why we need more  
responsibility in accounting.

-Dan Rosenthal
On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:47 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Florence has led the organization through difficult times and has
> always put as much time into the role as required, with _no_ personal
> compensation whatsoever.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Hoi,
I could not disagree with you more.

First off, we have to stay within the pertinent American laws. This is a
given. After that there is no reason why we cannot do, within the law, as we
like. Your argument that we could work for Wikimedia UK or DE is ill
considered, no board member works for the foundation.

Where you compare a parent with a kid just out of school, you assume that
the parent would not have qualifications. Assumption is the mother of most
fuck-ups. When the board indicates that they are operating in a way that is
sub optimal, you have to recognise that a lot of effort has been put into
finding a legal council and an executive director. These slots have been
filled. You have to recognise that they have done their utmost to manage a
staff that is gaining experience and that is too small for the task.

When the board is only to consist of American professionals, I am sure that
howls of protest will arise because these "professionals" are not likely to
represent our community nor our projects.

When you consider how inexpensive the running of the WMF organisation is,
then I do not understand your point of limiting expenses.. With more staff,
the costs will rise. We will look back in wonder of the "good" old times
when the bickering about costs was about the costs of providing a baby sit.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 2:07 PM, GerardM wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The reason why the norm of American charitable boards is relevant
> > up to a
> > point is that we are a global organisation. The point where the
> > American
> > norms lose their values in comparison is where an American law
> > stops giving
> > us options. When there is room for us to decide what is good, we
> > are allowed
> > to do so.
> >
>
>
> We are an American registered corporation. Because of that, we are
> obliged to follow American laws, and abide by American standards.
> Want to do things the euro way? Work for Wikimedia UK, or Wikimedia
> Germany.
>
> > We want the board to be a reflection of the people that make up our
> > community. We want these people be the ones that are most likely to
> > do a
> > mature job for us. I would rather have parents on the board then
> > another
> > bright kid who still has to learn much about the realities of life.
> >
> (disclaimer: this is not directed at any members of the board past or
> present in particular)
>
> I would rather have a bright kid who has a relevant professional
> degree and knows how to do the job of a board member than a parent
> with no such professional degree, and no experience being on a board
> of trustees. Come on, we already know the board, by their own
> admission, are operating outside the way they should ideally be, by
> having to micromanage staff and act as a "working" board. Would you
> rather have people who don't see what's wrong with that? Or would you
> rather have a board of professionals that will expand Wikimedia
> projects and ensure its financial, legal, and positional safety?
>
> > The amount of money involved in child care is not that much in the
> > grand
> > scale of things. When you consider the amount of time the board
> > members put
> > into their vocation it is a steal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
>
> It's not 100% about the cost. It's about limiting expenses, and it's
> about making the board a job of service, not a job of perks, or a job
> of resume building.
>
> -Dan Rosenthal
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Arne Klempert-2
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We are an American registered corporation. Because of that, we are
> obliged to follow American laws, and abide by American standards.
> Want to do things the euro way? Work for Wikimedia UK, or Wikimedia
> Germany.

Until today I never considered it a good idea to relocate the WMF out
of the U.S.  Times are changing...

Arne

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Anthony-73
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Absolutely right. That's what her job description as chairwoman is.
> If she were not doing that, she would have been removed from the
> position.
>
> It still does not entitle her to childcare expenses. Those have
> NOTHING to do with her direct function of being on the board. They
> are a secondary expense, one that when she accepted the board
> position, continued to remain her responsibility.
>
I really don't understand this line of reasoning.  If Ant travels to
Japan to participate in a WMF board meeting, someone has to take care
of her kids while she's gone (as I understand it she has at least one
child who is far to young to take care of emself).  If she pays
someone to do this, it is a direct cost of her having to attend the
meeting, i.e. it is a cost which she would not have incurred had she
not attended the meeting.  If attending board meetings in remote
locations is a direct function of being on the board, childcare
expenses have EVERYTHING to do with it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: (no subject)

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
On 7/9/07, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (preface: i know this is not your position.)
>
> But that's just it, why should we be outside the norm of American
> charitable boards? Ok yeah, we have some differences, collaborative
> wiki, web 2.0, etc. etc. It's still a board, and boards have certain
> requirements to be run effectively, and one of those is the financial
> independence of the board members from the organization they serve.
>
> Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying
> things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the
> ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.
> Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT
> purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your
> electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or
> your family member's lunch budgets. Those are not the purview of the
> foundation as an entity. Only getting you to the destination, giving
> you a place there to stay and conduct your business, and getting you
> back home. Child care has nothing to do with that.
>
> If dependent reimbursement is given out as a benefit or gift to the
> board, rather than a staple of function, that's something completely
> different. But lets be perfectly honest: there's no evidence that the
> foundation is in a financial position to be giving benefits and gifts
> like that,.

I am in support of reimbursing reasonable expenses directly incurred
for work the Foundation has asked of them, including child care.

Wikimedia in the past has chosen board members because of their
commitment to the orgnization and its mission, and not for their
direct or indirect financial support, unlike many other organizations.

An employee may negotiate the salary if it is not sufficient to cover
what they require, and any reasonable employer will look at the costs
and the benefits and the circumstances and do what makes sense.
Because of this, such a policy may be more restrictive for a
compensated employee, whose expenses beyond the standard
air/food/lodging should already be accounted for in their
compensation, than for a volunteer who often chooses to forgo other
employment opportunities in order to give time to Wikimedia, who
already pays the opportunity cost of not working more, and who now
must pay additional expenses as well.

This is not a windfall for any of us, and perhaps for most of us we
have not only done things that were not essential at our own expense,
but also set aside time to do this instead of things that would be
more lucrative. Being on the board is not intended to be a windfall,
but neither is it intended to be an undue hardship.

Right now, if we would like to be able to keep the sorts of people
that the community has indicated through its vote that it wishes to
see on the board, who have given their time and given up opportunities
to do so, and has asked them to travel on behalf of the organization,
at a benefit to the organization, I do not think it unreasonable that
expenses should be compensated.

No travel is approved unless it is considered worthwhile; conference
speeches, board meetings, and opportunities for fundraising or
business deals are some examples of things worth enough to pay travel
and incidentals for them; I support the idea of making such expenses
public as far as is possible. For some events, a price tag can be
placed on the benefit and for others it cannot; still, it is an
expense that is considered worthwhile. Should then the cost of child
care, as a small portion of the total expense and certainly no luxury,
be a sticking point that may make the difference between having
someone who should represent us able to attend or not, or prevent
those we would most like to represent us from being able to serve on
the board at all? I don't think that it should.

-Kat


--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12