Robert Horning wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Carolyn Doran <cdoran(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
What reason would we have to be near a
consulate?
~ C
Any organization that claims to be international in scope, would ideally be
based in close
proximity to representatives from many national governments. Of course, that is not the
only thing
to consider.
-- mav
I hardly consider that to be a major issue for an organization that is
founded upon and relies upon electronic communication for most of its
activity. In America (assuming that this means the WMF must stay in the
USA) that really leaves just a very limited number of cities you could
put it in: New York City and Washington, DC. In California, while
there are many consulates there, they tend to be split up between Los
Angeles and San Francisco in roughly equal proportions depending on the
country involved. And for smaller countries they will only have an
embassy or consulate in DC or NYC.
For those particular situations where face to face meetings are
absolutely required, you can easily fly from St. Pete to one of those
two cities anyway at a modest cost, or even to the country who you are
trying to deal with directly. I would presume that any such meeting
would be a very rare exception anyway and would not be at all necessary
in terms of day to day operations of the foundation. Certainly the cost
of an airline flight would be trivial compared to the increased cost of
daily living in either of these two cities for what would realistically
be of marginal improved value for the foundation.
-- Robert Horning
Note that currently, the majority of board members live in Europe. Going
to the east coast is already a bit of a pain. Going to the west coast
is not really going to help. Longer flights.
Another point is time difference. The meeting window is already tough to
assume (most of my phone calls with the USA take place mid afternoon, or
after 22 pm my time) due to the 6 hours difference. Time difference with
the west coast is 9 hours. Which means the mid afternoon time slot is
not practical.
Amongst the "costs" of moving the west coast, I would add tiredness for
having to still wake up at 6 am everyday for the family, but work very
late within the night to keep in touch with the office. Tough.
So, east coast would be preferable certainly. A big city would also make
travelling easier. But as mentionned previously, it would cost much more
(higher salaries, higher hosting costs)
I presume it could be an option in the future to move the office (or to
have several offices). I do not think it is reasonable now to consider that.
ant