Mailing List Archive

board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc.
This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
(eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the
number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at
an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for board
members and others giving talks about the Foundation. Much of this is based
on my belief that it is possible to say no to speaker requests too. We are
big enough to set the terms by which we offer to send speakers, and the
benefits of participating in various conferences etc. should be weighed against the
real needs and interests of the Foundation. My proposal is as follows.

1. Requests for speakers from the Foundation will be approved by a
subcommittee of the Communications Committee to be known as the "Speakers
Subcommittee.".
2. The Speakers Subcommittee will determine whether and how fulfilling the
request furthers the goals of the Foundation. This will be called Speaker
Objectives.
3. The Speakers Subcommittee will then determine whether the Speaker
Objectives are equal or greater to the costs involved in sending a speaker to the
event.

4. The Speaker Subcommittee will then determine which representative of the
WMF is best suited to deliver the talk, based on considerations of language,
geography, skills, conference needs, availability, etc.

5. Basic costs for speakers will include
a. transportation
b. per diem (hotel, food)
c. ancillary (babysitting, formal wear such as renting a tux, other)
6. The Speaker Subcommittee will negotiate with the requesting organization
to ensure that they cover as much of these costs as possible. Should the event
be deemed worthwhile, but the requesting organization is unable to cover
these basic costs, the Speakers Committee will determine a budget for the
speaker to participate.
7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be paid to
the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
8. A calendar of speaking engagements and speakers will be maintained in a
public space, such as wikimediafoundation.org.
9. Only speakers approved and appointed by the Speakers Subcommittee will be
entitled to speak on behalf of the Foundation in such public forums and to
make use of Foundation property such as logos, registered tm's, etc. in their
presentations.
10. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will provide a
written report to the Speakers Subcommittee in which they describe whether and how
the Speaker Objectives were met.
11. The written report will include a summary of the talk, major questions
asked, and a copy of handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc. as necessary.
12. These materials will be made easily available to other speakers so as to
enhance their own presentations.
13. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will also submit any
receipts for *approved* expenses.
14. Upon submission of receipts, the written report, and ancillary
materials--and only upon their submission--the speaker will be reimbursed for any
out-of-pocket expenses.

While this may seem bureaucratic to some, I believe that it is a common
sense approach to dealing with the growing influx of requests for speakers that
the Foundation is facing. It will help us to avoid what Mr. Merkey wisely
called "poaching speaking engagements," and ensure that previous experiences as a
speaker are shared with others.

Rather than dwell upon what happened in the past, let's move forward by
improving this initial proposal and submitting it to the Board for vote.

Danny


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Found>, > This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses , > (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the , > number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at , [ In reply to ]
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
> 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be
> paid to the Foundation, for providing a speaker.

I think this concept of the Foundation receiving speaker's fees makes a
lot of sense for employees of the foundation, just as it
might for any organization where speakers are being paid by the
organization and the speaking is a part of what their salary covers.
For volunteers, this makes significantly less sense to me.

I have for a very long time now stressed to everyone who invites me to
speak that they are inviting me in my personal capacity. So this
policy will have no impact on me. But it could have impact on many others.

However, it could significantly impact our desire to bring more people
to the public eye. For a volunteer to prepare a talk, travel to do it,
a typical honorarium will be still be pretty poor compensation for the
time away from family, work, etc.

I believe, and my memory might be weak here so someone can correct me,
that this question first came up when David Gerard gave a
talk in the UK, a talk for which there was an honorarium (small)
associated with it. The small amount of money involved, it seems to me,
quite properly
should go to David for his efforts. And why not?

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
I endorse Danny's proposal below.

-- mav

--- daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

> This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
> (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the
> number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at
> an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for board
> members and others giving talks about the Foundation. Much of this is based
> on my belief that it is possible to say no to speaker requests too. We are
> big enough to set the terms by which we offer to send speakers, and the
> benefits of participating in various conferences etc. should be weighed against the
> real needs and interests of the Foundation. My proposal is as follows.
>
> 1. Requests for speakers from the Foundation will be approved by a
> subcommittee of the Communications Committee to be known as the "Speakers
> Subcommittee.".
> 2. The Speakers Subcommittee will determine whether and how fulfilling the
> request furthers the goals of the Foundation. This will be called Speaker
> Objectives.
> 3. The Speakers Subcommittee will then determine whether the Speaker
> Objectives are equal or greater to the costs involved in sending a speaker to the
> event.
>
> 4. The Speaker Subcommittee will then determine which representative of the
> WMF is best suited to deliver the talk, based on considerations of language,
> geography, skills, conference needs, availability, etc.
>
> 5. Basic costs for speakers will include
> a. transportation
> b. per diem (hotel, food)
> c. ancillary (babysitting, formal wear such as renting a tux, other)
> 6. The Speaker Subcommittee will negotiate with the requesting organization
> to ensure that they cover as much of these costs as possible. Should the event
> be deemed worthwhile, but the requesting organization is unable to cover
> these basic costs, the Speakers Committee will determine a budget for the
> speaker to participate.
> 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be paid to
> the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
> 8. A calendar of speaking engagements and speakers will be maintained in a
> public space, such as wikimediafoundation.org.
> 9. Only speakers approved and appointed by the Speakers Subcommittee will be
> entitled to speak on behalf of the Foundation in such public forums and to
> make use of Foundation property such as logos, registered tm's, etc. in their
> presentations.
> 10. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will provide a
> written report to the Speakers Subcommittee in which they describe whether and how
> the Speaker Objectives were met.
> 11. The written report will include a summary of the talk, major questions
> asked, and a copy of handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc. as necessary.
> 12. These materials will be made easily available to other speakers so as to
> enhance their own presentations.
> 13. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will also submit any
> receipts for *approved* expenses.
> 14. Upon submission of receipts, the written report, and ancillary
> materials--and only upon their submission--the speaker will be reimbursed for any
> out-of-pocket expenses.
>
> While this may seem bureaucratic to some, I believe that it is a common
> sense approach to dealing with the growing influx of requests for speakers that
> the Foundation is facing. It will help us to avoid what Mr. Merkey wisely
> called "poaching speaking engagements," and ensure that previous experiences as a
> speaker are shared with others.
>
> Rather than dwell upon what happened in the past, let's move forward by
> improving this initial proposal and submitting it to the Board for vote.
>
> Danny
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Found>, > This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses , > (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the , > number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at , [ In reply to ]
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:

> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
> > 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an
> honorarium, to be
> > paid to the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
>
> I think this concept of the Foundation receiving
> speaker's fees makes a
> lot of sense for employees of the foundation, just
> as it
> might for any organization where speakers are being
> paid by the
> organization and the speaking is a part of what
> their salary covers.
> For volunteers, this makes significantly less sense
> to me.
>
> I have for a very long time now stressed to everyone
> who invites me to
> speak that they are inviting me in my personal
> capacity. So this
> policy will have no impact on me. But it could have
> impact on many others.
>
> However, it could significantly impact our desire to
> bring more people
> to the public eye. For a volunteer to prepare a
> talk, travel to do it,
> a typical honorarium will be still be pretty poor
> compensation for the
> time away from family, work, etc.
>
> I believe, and my memory might be weak here so
> someone can correct me,
> that this question first came up when David Gerard
> gave a
> talk in the UK, a talk for which there was an
> honorarium (small)
> associated with it. The small amount of money
> involved, it seems to me,
> quite properly
> should go to David for his efforts. And why not?
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I am unsure on this issue. On one hand you have a
good point, but on the other hand there are many tasks
being done that require volunteers to take time away
from family, work, etc. without any kind of
compensation (ie being a Board Member). There is
somewhat of a double standard when the community seats
on the Board are uncompensated and require many hours
per week and David Gerard is compensated for a much
smaller time commitment.

Perhaps the honorariums collected for speakers could
pooled allowing each speaker a equal amount of
honorarium per event (that the board may agree on)
plus expenses. In that fashion the money would be
kept seperate from any non-speaking Foundation
expenses. This could also allow the WMF to send
speakers to conferences in the developing world which
may not be able afford covering the expenses involved
without having to dip into donation money. Or there
may be some better solution. I do think there needs
to be some kind of guideline on the matter, but
perhaps the communication commitee should handle this.

BirgitteSB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
On 8/12/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
> This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
> (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the
> number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at
> an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for board
> members and others giving talks about the Foundation.

What about the requests that don't come in via an official Foundation
address? If individuals are approached, are you expecting them to
follow these guidelines, or would those not count as official
Foundation talks? Do we have any way of knowing which events are
expecting an official representative of the Foundation?

> 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium
> , to be paid to the Foundation, for providing a speaker.

Are you suggesting that this Subcommittee would only send people if an
honorarium was to be received? Or would you just be requesting it on
the slim chance there is one? Considering I've only ever once been
offered one, it doesn't seem very likely most speakers are going to
get this, unless you want to start turning down the opportunity to
promote the projects except in the very rare cases where money will be
involved.

An additional point to consider is whether this subcommittee will be
the ones booking the transport.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
In a message dated 8/12/2006 4:53:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
beesley@gmail.com writes:

On 8/12/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
> This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
> (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With
the
> number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in
at
> an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for
board
> members and others giving talks about the Foundation.

What about the requests that don't come in via an official Foundation
address? If individuals are approached, are you expecting them to
follow these guidelines, or would those not count as official
Foundation talks? Do we have any way of knowing which events are
expecting an official representative of the Foundation?
All speaking requests in which people go out and represent the Foundation
should be under the auspicies and supervision of the Foundation. The Foundation
should know who is going out speaking on its behalf, what they are saying,
and to whom--especially when registered trademarks and logos are concerned. We
are wary of people misusing our logo and trademark on websites--why should we
not be equally wary of people misusing our logo and trademark in the real
world? Finally, when people contact the Foundation asking for a speaker, it is
safe to assume that they expect an "official representative."





> 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium
> , to be paid to the Foundation, for providing a speaker.

Are you suggesting that this Subcommittee would only send people if an
honorarium was to be received? Or would you just be requesting it on
the slim chance there is one? Considering I've only ever once been
offered one, it doesn't seem very likely most speakers are going to
get this, unless you want to start turning down the opportunity to
promote the projects except in the very rare cases where money will be
involved.
No, I am suggesting that the Subcommittee request an honorarium as well as
expenses. It is possible that none will be available. The Subcommittee will
then decide whether or not to send someone. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier,
not every request for a speaker must be met. It is also okay to say no for
any number of reasons.




An additional point to consider is whether this subcommittee will be
the ones booking the transport.

That would depend on who is paying for teh transportation.

Danny



Angela.



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
> All speaking requests in which people go out and represent the Foundation
> should be under the auspicies and supervision of the Foundation.

Perhaps, but it isn't currently clear when people are representing the
Foundation. Personally, as I'm moving to focusing more on Wikia than
Wikimedia, how would I know which organisation I'm representing, or
whether I'm not representing either, but just attending as someone who
knows something about wikis? Most people attending these events will
have multiple affiliations, and as far as I can tell, most invitations
go directly to the speaker, not via the Foundation (though that could
be because there's never been a central point of contact for this sort
of thing within the Foundation). Also, people do talk about Wikipedia
without having any affiliation - http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2586 is
one of a few examples of Mitch Kapor giving a talk about Wikipedia.

As an example of a talk I couldn't attend, I asked the organisers
whether they wanted me to find someone else from the Foundation, and
they said no because they specifically wanted a British female Board
member, so it's likely some of these events do want specific people,
or at least specific types of people, regardless of any official
affiliation with the Foundation. Other talks I've been invited to have
said they asked me not because of Wikimedia, but because of other
affiliations I have (ourmedia in one case), or because I was female
(perhaps as a result of me being listed on Socialtext's speakers'
wiki).

> Finally, when people contact the Foundation asking for a speaker, it is
> safe to assume that they expect an "official representative."

That might be true, but most of the events I've been to, I've been
contacted personally. I don't think that necessarily means they
weren't expecting an official representative.

What would it mean for a speaker to attend something *not* as an
official representative? Perhaps guidelines on what people can do if
they are/are not attending in that capacity are needed. It needs to be
something more than just not keeping the money since there generally
isn't any offered anyway.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
On 8/12/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:

> What would it mean for a speaker to attend something *not* as an
> official representative? Perhaps guidelines on what people can do if
> they are/are not attending in that capacity are needed. It needs to be
> something more than just not keeping the money since there generally
> isn't any offered anyway.

I believe it is very simple, the signature on the speaker's
presentation would state:

"Mr Schmoll, ZabadumWiki" and not "Mr Schmoll, Wikimedia Foundation".
More over, advertisement about Mr Schmoll participating in the
conference would not mention their affiliation with the Wikimedia
Foundation other than in their bio, and Wikimedia would not be the
point of focus of their talk. This is in the case of someone like you
who has more than one affiliation about wikis, for example.

In the case you state about Mitch Kapor, he was surely invited as
Mitch Kapor talking about Wikipedia, and not a random wikipedian who
happened to be Mitch Kapor.



Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
On 8/13/06, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Mr Schmoll, ZabadumWiki" and not "Mr Schmoll, Wikimedia Foundation".

That makes sense, but what if "ZabadumWiki" is "Wikipedia" (or any
other Wikimedia project)? There could still be trademark issues.

I wish I could go to a conference where they would correctly write
"Wikimedia Foundation" on my badge, and not the random collection of
things they put instead. I was apparently from "Wikipedia, Wikia
Foundation" at one event this year.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
On 8/12/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:

> 1. Requests for speakers from the Foundation will be approved by a
> subcommittee of the Communications Committee to be known as the "Speakers
> Subcommittee.".

In the Communications Committee meeting earlier today there was no
significant objection to the idea of creating a Speakers subcommittee
to manage this, though specifics were not discussed in depth; Amgine
has been doing a fair bit of speaker handling through requests mailed
to WMF already. I endorse the general idea of this being managed
through a committee, approving speakers and archiving presentations;
not decided on other details.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
Resending in the thread, sorry for the mishap.

On 8/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
> > 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be
> > paid to the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
>
> I think this concept of the Foundation receiving speaker's fees makes a
> lot of sense for employees of the foundation, just as it
> might for any organization where speakers are being paid by the
> organization and the speaking is a part of what their salary covers.
> For volunteers, this makes significantly less sense to me.

I believe it does not only make sense, but it seems completely and
totally normal that employees of the Foundation, whenever giving a
speech and offered an honorarium, should *not* be given an honorarium
personally, but rather make sure whatever money is there to take goes
to the Foundation.

> I have for a very long time now stressed to everyone who invites me to
> speak that they are inviting me in my personal capacity. So this
> policy will have no impact on me. But it could have impact on many others.

This is where, in my opinion, we hit the borderline case. If you take
every single speech in your personal capacity, what chance is there
that organisations that would like to help the projects as a whole
ever can? Of course they want Jimmy Wales. But if you never are tasked
with the role of representing the Foundation, and hence bring some of
the honoraria into the organisation, there is a big chance that we'll
never see the first cent of anything. Although I do agree with you
that people should be able to take whatever money is given to them, I
also believe that *some* of it should go to the Foundation.

I am not saying all of it, I am not even putting forward a percentage,
but the Foundation has to see a return on investment in the time and
money they put in providing speakers to the organisations that ask for
them (booking tickets, making sure that the person is there,
reimbursing upfront the speaker while waiting that the conference
organizer reimburse them has a cost in the end), as well as for the
trademarks used to advertise the conferences etc. This includes all
volunteers, and in my opinion, you.

This return on investment could be on an "assume good faith" basis,
ie. if a speaker is offered XXX dollars per year to give speeches,
they might want to make a donation to the Foundation one day or the
other, or at least be in a position where they can attest their talk
has brought something to the Foundation, may it be contacts (and hence
potential sponsors that turn into real sponsors), a great press
coverage (and hence an increase in donations) etc.

Another thing is also, that although I agree with Danny that we should
be in a position where we can refuse to send a speaker, this should
only be keeping in mind the return on investment. We should never find
ourselves in a position where we refuse to send a speaker *because*
there is no money involved. One speech that might cost us money to
arrange can bring millions of dollars in, another that costs nothing
and brings money to one person (the speaker) might bring the
Foundation absolutely nothing. There is a balance to be found.

This said, I would be interested in knowing what speakers and speeches
have actually brought to the Foundation in its 3 years of existence,
whether directly or indirectly. Having an idea of that should give a
good basis to fine tune Danny's proposal.


Delphine
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
> This conversation had jumped back and forth from single-instance expenses
> (eg. babysitting costs) to much larger issues such as speakers fees. With the
> number of speaking requests pouring in to the Foundation (and they come in at
> an ever increasing rate), I want to suggest the following guidelines for board
> members and others giving talks about the Foundation. Much of this is based
> on my belief that it is possible to say no to speaker requests too. We are
> big enough to set the terms by which we offer to send speakers, and the
> benefits of participating in various conferences etc. should be weighed against the
> real needs and interests of the Foundation. My proposal is as follows.
>
> 1. Requests for speakers from the Foundation will be approved by a
> subcommittee of the Communications Committee to be known as the "Speakers
> Subcommittee.".

How will you define which requests made should make it to the
subcommittee and which should not ?
For example, what if a speaker receive a personal invitation to talk.
Should he turn the invitation to the committee, who will maybe assign
someone else ? Is that viable ?
For example, what should be done with requests made on a specific
project or on its mailing list. Or to requests made for example to a
specific user who also happens to be a chapter member. Would he have to
turn the invitation he got or the chapter got so that it is handled by
the subcommmittee ?

> 2. The Speakers Subcommittee will determine whether and how fulfilling the
> request furthers the goals of the Foundation. This will be called Speaker
> Objectives.

Certainly, if the request was sent to a specific speaker, this speaker
can participate to determine the Speaker Objectives.

> 3. The Speakers Subcommittee will then determine whether the Speaker
> Objectives are equal or greater to the costs involved in sending a speaker to the
> event.
>
> 4. The Speaker Subcommittee will then determine which representative of the
> WMF is best suited to deliver the talk, based on considerations of language,
> geography, skills, conference needs, availability, etc.

Eh Danny.... Should not number 3 occur *after* number 4 ? Surely, you
cannot estimate costs first and choose the person second.

Also, the speaker may choose to go and participate even if the costs are
higher than the benefit for the Foundation, since the benefits may be
higher for him (in which case, he will support part of the cost of course)

> 5. Basic costs for speakers will include
> a. transportation
> b. per diem (hotel, food)
> c. ancillary (babysitting, formal wear such as renting a tux, other)
> 6. The Speaker Subcommittee will negotiate with the requesting organization
> to ensure that they cover as much of these costs as possible. Should the event
> be deemed worthwhile, but the requesting organization is unable to cover
> these basic costs, the Speakers Committee will determine a budget for the
> speaker to participate.

Care should be given that cultural issues may get in the way. It is much
more usual apparently to pay in certain countries than in some others.

> 7. The Speaker Subcommittee will also request an honorarium, to be paid to
> the Foundation, for providing a speaker.
> 8. A calendar of speaking engagements and speakers will be maintained in a
> public space, such as wikimediafoundation.org.
> 9. Only speakers approved and appointed by the Speakers Subcommittee will be
> entitled to speak on behalf of the Foundation in such public forums and to
> make use of Foundation property such as logos, registered tm's, etc. in their
> presentations.

Hmmm.
So... are you saying that all these editors kindly and voluntarily going
to present the project at local fairs or students gathering or groupwork
libraries, usually very casually invited; and very unlikely approved by
the Foundation.... will not be authorized to put a Wikipedia logo in
their presentation in the future ???

> 10. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will provide a
> written report to the Speakers Subcommittee in which they describe whether and how
> the Speaker Objectives were met.
> 11. The written report will include a summary of the talk, major questions
> asked, and a copy of handouts, PowerPoint presentations, etc. as necessary.
> 12. These materials will be made easily available to other speakers so as to
> enhance their own presentations.

Should exclude all presentations where discretion is required.

> 13. Upon completing their speaking engagement, speakers will also submit any
> receipts for *approved* expenses.
> 14. Upon submission of receipts, the written report, and ancillary
> materials--and only upon their submission--the speaker will be reimbursed for any
> out-of-pocket expenses.

Does that mean that all speakers will have to advance all expenses each
time ?

> While this may seem bureaucratic to some, I believe that it is a common
> sense approach to dealing with the growing influx of requests for speakers that
> the Foundation is facing. It will help us to avoid what Mr. Merkey wisely
> called "poaching speaking engagements," and ensure that previous experiences as a
> speaker are shared with others.

I am a bit perplex of how this will work out when chapters are concerned.

> Rather than dwell upon what happened in the past, let's move forward by
> improving this initial proposal and submitting it to the Board for vote.
>
> Danny


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>
>What about the requests that don't come in via an official Foundation
>address? If individuals are approached, are you expecting them to
>follow these guidelines, or would those not count as official
>Foundation talks? Do we have any way of knowing which events are
>expecting an official representative of the Foundation?
>All speaking requests in which people go out and represent the Foundation
>should be under the auspicies and supervision of the Foundation. The Foundation
>should know who is going out speaking on its behalf, what they are saying,
>and to whom--especially when registered trademarks and logos are concerned. We
>are wary of people misusing our logo and trademark on websites--why should we
>not be equally wary of people misusing our logo and trademark in the real
>world? Finally, when people contact the Foundation asking for a speaker, it is
>safe to assume that they expect an "official representative."
>
A further distinction needs to be made. How does one distinguish
between representing the Foundation, and representing a project like
en-wikipedia? Since the organization would quite rightly limit its
involvement with the operations of a project it follows that those who
are asked to speak about how to use Wikipedia would be just as likely to
represent their respective community.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>snip
>

>14. Upon submission of receipts, the written report, and ancillary
>materials--and only upon their submission--the speaker will be reimbursed for any
>out-of-pocket expenses.
>
>
>
You may wish to consider advancing a substantial percentage of estimated
reasonable costs to the speaker. This was done as typical practice by
the U.S.G. when I was a junior engineer there.

I found it a useful practice to follow when I operated my own computer
consulting firm.

Many people do not have a cash reserve of up to several thousand dollars
sitting around conveniently. Often they have not started serious
savings yet for retirement, purchase of a house or car, or a child's
college. Very often their personal net worth is tied up in long term
or scheduled investments.

It complicates the bookkeeping just a tiny bit and yes there is the
chance of getting stiffed by non submittal of appropriate receipts in
which case you write off the advance as the complete expense and decline
to advance money to that person again without an overriding reason.

The bottom line is in a reimbursable situation like this the person is
presumably traveling for the benefit of the organization. It is in the
organization's best interest that it be able to convince people to
travel even if they do not have large personal cash reserves or credit
lines to use for the organization's benefit until reimbursement.

regards,
lazyquasar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 01:14:13AM +0200, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> Resending in the thread, sorry for the mishap.
>
> This return on investment could be on an "assume good faith" basis,
> ie. if a speaker is offered XXX dollars per year to give speeches,
> they might want to make a donation to the Foundation one day or the
> other, or at least be in a position where they can attest their talk
> has brought something to the Foundation, may it be contacts (and hence
> potential sponsors that turn into real sponsors), a great press
> coverage (and hence an increase in donations) etc.

Surprisingly, doing the right speech at the right location might also
further our objectives much more than any amount of money might buy us. :-P

Pecunia non olet, but next to getting money (which is very important,
for sure!) , I think a speech or activity that furthers our objectives
directly can also often be very useful.

read you soon,
Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: board, babysitting, speaking engagements, etc. [ In reply to ]
It is a pity that a discussion about how to get people talking about
Wikipedia and its sibling projects, something that all of us might do
more of, was sidetracked into a discussion about who gets money, or on
how much financial contribution a talk "brings in".

All of us might do more talking about Wikipedia -- casually and
formally -- to increase awareness, editing, and use of the projects.
The most important result of a great speech, considering its impact on
the projects, their editing communities, their user communities, and
the foundation, is rarely going to be its financial influence on the
foundation.

As later replies in the thread noted : honoraria for most speakers are
the exception, not the rule; and people are usually asked to talk
about the development of Wikipedia and its siblings, not about the
Foundation itself. Working to vastly increase the # of speaking
opportunities out there seems as important, if not moreso, than
finding ways to regulate who can speak where under what conditions.

SJ

On 8/12/06, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:

> This return on investment could be on an "assume good faith" basis,
> ie. if a speaker is offered XXX dollars per year to give speeches,
> they might want to make a donation to the Foundation one day or the
> other, or at least be in a position where they can attest their talk
> has brought something to the Foundation, may it be contacts (and hence
> potential sponsors that turn into real sponsors), a great press
> coverage (and hence an increase in donations) etc.
>
> Another thing is also, that although I agree with Danny that we should
> be in a position where we can refuse to send a speaker, this should
> only be keeping in mind the return on investment. We should never find
> ourselves in a position where we refuse to send a speaker *because*
> there is no money involved. One speech that might cost us money to
> arrange can bring millions of dollars in, another that costs nothing
> and brings money to one person (the speaker) might bring the
> Foundation absolutely nothing. There is a balance to be found.

I hope the 'return on investment' here attends to the benefit accruing
to the projects -- their content, their editing and user and reuse
communities -- something rarely expressable in terms of money given to
the foundation.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l