Talk:Requests for comment/MediaWiki Foundation

But how
Nikerabbit
 * MediaWiki releases are not done by volunteers currently
 * Where would the new Foundation get money and workers?
 * Who would decide what it does?

Ways of meeting donor's needs
It seems to me that the donors should be in the driver's seat about what the Foundation's money goes toward. They could either earmark donations for a specific project or direct that the money be spent wherever it is needed most. Of course, fungibility of funds can sometimes defeat the purpose of these earmarks; for example, suppose $100,000 in general funding was going to go toward Project X, and then a donor gave $100,000, designating it for project X. Then Foundation could then shift the $100,000 in general funding out of project X, achieving the same effect as if the donor had given the money to the general fund.

By the way, why must it be a nonprofit? Why not set it up as a for-profit entity, and consider the donors as customers who receive software development services in return for their money? My guess is that most customers will be interested in specific projects, rather than in giving money to the general fund. This might be a more efficient way of doing things, since the advantages of nonprofits tend to be illusory. Leucosticte (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to have confused yourself there ;-) . The assignment of USD 100,000 to a certain project would help when WMF would otherwise allocate none. Now a better way might be to promote a project is by offering up to USD 100,000 for project X based on equal assignment by WMF from the general fund. Working for profit introduces taxes and many other expenses - which would end up monetizing all the assets. 84.3.85.135 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternative - in-house WMF department
I wonder if an entity within WMF would be more appropriate and realistic. Utilizing the existing operations structure would be far easier. Perhaps setup something like FDC to oversee priorities and funds.

My hunch is WMF would be far more likely to sign off on something they retain a sense of sign-off on for the sake of maintaining the WMF projects than having to deal with an independent entity that would have the legal right to go rogue one day and not do what's in the best interest of the WMF projects. I recognize to some extent that's the point, but looking down a 5 year road of possibilities, is that something we'd ever want to happen? My feeling is no and allowing WMF to maintain some level of authority in the development of MediaWiki is in our collective best interests. From project management, fundraising, usability, system resources and paid developer support perspective.

Summary: Instead of a dedicated MW Foundation, I would instead propose a MediaWiki department or collective (insert your favorite term here). --Varnent (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting the alternative section. I wonder if this RFC should be re-titled to be a bit more generic (e.g., "Focused MediaWiki development" or something). Then you'd have == MediaWiki Foundation ==, == MediaWiki department ==, and maybe some other sections. Any thoughts on this? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadly scoped
I see this RFC as a general statement about the ever-more apparent juxtaposition of the Mediawiki software and it's implementation at Wikimedia sites. We as the community need to learn how to balance the needs of the WMF (as an implementation of the software) with the need to have development of the software itself.

I agree with the statement that "there are few developers contributing to MediaWiki whose ability to take on large MediaWiki development projects is not either biased towards what is in their employer's interests or restricted in how much time can be spent on those projects." That is some good insight.

Questions:


 * 1) Where would funding come from?
 * 2) * Would this compete with the WikiMedia Foundation (WMF) ?
 * 3) How would this proposed organization interact with the "core" developers (paid staff and WMF contractors)?
 * 4) How is this different than large local chapters? (I'm thinking of Wikimedia Deutschland.)
 * 5) Who would provide the infrastructure for the release management? Where would the hardware come from?

-Daniel Renfro talk/ [mailto:bluecurio@gmail.com email] 00:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ad-hoc notes from WMF Tech Days meeting
We discussed this idea a bit at WMF tech days. Some notes on etherpad: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/MediaWikiFoundation I've encouraged folks to get involved in the discussion on this RFC page. brion

US-based pro bono lawyer / paperwork guy
If this idea—of making the MediaWiki development group a separate entity—ever gets widespread approval, I volunteer to handle legal/paperwork tasks, especially: (a.) preparing and submitting the documents needed for it to become a nonprofit organiztion in the United States; or (b.) arranging for a suitable fiscal sponsor to support the group. I'd feel most comfortable setting it up in Massachusetts, in the United States, since that's where I am a licensed attorney. But other US states would probably be fine, too. By the way, to repeat what has been said elsewhere: this hypothetical group really, probably shouldn't be called a "Foundation"—at least not under US law, at least not yet. Magic Sands (talk)
 * What's the disadvantage to calling it that? Leucosticte (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, "Leucosticte". Well, okay, no permanent harm would come from calling it a "Foundation," and in fact it could even ultimately be called a "Foundation" in name, while still operating differently than a genuine "private foundation" under US law.  But here's the thing, Leucosticte...tax-exempt status under US law encompasses two different categories of organizations: so-called "public charities" and so-called "private foundations," with different rules for each. In case the MediaWiki development group doesn't aim to be a true "private foundation" in this sense, I thought it helpful to avoid future confusion by suggesting we break the habit now, of calling this hypothetical entity a "Foundation" (furthermore, as was mentioned elsewhere, its name is totally an open question at this point anyway).
 * All right, to summarize: the group would be not be weaker in any tangible way, for being called a "Foundation," so don't worry about that...however I do want to steer us in a direction which I believe avoids confusion, in case the group never actually desires to be a "private foundation" in the legal sense. Magic Sands (talk)