On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on this list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF is not a business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a culture/ educational institution.
As stated on a number of occasions, I whole-heartedly agree with this approach. It is also logical from strategic management point of view: our core competitive advantage is the ability to engage with the knowledge communities around ideas (we are the best in the world at that), and not developing tech (we're good, but we're no match for Google, 3M, or Facebook here). We should realize that as the vision of the WMF as predominantly a high-tech organization is really dangerous.
We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just giving perspective). We COULD NOT outsource the community support.
A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place better known for culture and education and less for proximity to Silicon Valley. Boston was named in the same discussion.
If we were choosing a location from the scratch - definitely. As it is now, I think that relocating would involve really huge intangible costs for our staff, and our staff is our unique asset. I would be cautious to rush any changes in this respect.
dj