(volunteer hat on)
Glasgow to London in no way represents the scale of what any move, even an in-US move, would be, unless the goal is for the WMF to end up in LA or (maybe) Portland.
I would agree that a multi-location setup would work better as a good expansion route here, although I'm not sure what that how that would work out internationally, in terms of legal liability. Even just having an east coast location in somewhere obvious (we have clusters of staff in, e.g., Boston, Raleigh and NY, albeit small clusters) would make a big difference.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2015 at 06:07, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilogur@gmail.com wrote:
A logistical non-starter! They've got 200+ staff members, any gains to...
Plenty of companies and charities happily move their HQ building location with more staff gaining benefits rather than losing them. I was involved with a corporate move where most staff went from London to Glasgow, with the benefit that their family and social lives improved and they could afford to buy large houses with the same money it takes to buy half a small flat in London. Presented the right way, a move can improve staff commitment and even reduce turnover.
You also can't have it both ways, the WMF is supposed to be a multi-location global organization. Strategically it would be better to grow globally in several locations, rather than always having everyone in the same offices in the same city on the West Coast of America. Our staff and volunteers are highly experienced in virtual cooperation and meetings, the WMF could even become an exemplar for how that works for smaller organizations with global teams.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe