On Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Zack Exley <zexley at wikimedia.org> wrote:
"Maximizing" for us means raising our budget with as little negative impact on the projects as possible
Where do you find that meaning or any suggestion of it in the unanimous resolution of the board of 9 October 2010?
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_fundraising_princi...
That is in fact what was meant (evident on the discussion page on Meta): the foundation should aim to maximize fundraising efficiency; or support raised per unit of fundraising activity.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Guiding_principles_with_regards_to...
That appears to be a draft which was never deliberated by or approved by the Board of Trustees. Is there any reason it should take precedence over the Board's unanimous resolution to achieve "the highest possible overall financial support for the Wikimedia movement, in terms of both financial totals and the number of individuals making contributions"?
Maximizing the activity itself - fundraising 24/7/365.2524 - would reduce the usefulness of the projects.
I am certainly not suggesting that fundraising occur 24/7, but only that it follow our established traditional patterns in a manner which allows us to pay salaries competitive with similar labor performed in the same area. It is quite clear that relying on "the mission" in lieu of competitive pay for junior employees does not support the kind of employee retention and satisfaction which the Foundation has enjoyed in the past.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Matthew Roth <mroth at wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:18 AM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
During the past year has the ratio of the Foundation's top executive pay to the pay of junior staff and contractors increased by more than 50%?
James, I'm not going to get too far into the other specifics of this really (for me) perplexing and troubling thread, but I personally wish this piece of your litany would stop....
Matt, the rest of your message had absolutely nothing about the Foundation's salary ratios in it, but I can understand why it might be the most troubling for you because of the problems that income inequality is causing in society in general. There are three times as many homeless children today as in 1983, a new record high this year: http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/pages/state-of-the-homeless-2012 But how often do we hear about that on the news?
salaries have been pegged to be somewhere between similar non-profits and similar tech companies, understanding that our sweet spot is both as a tech company and also as a mission-driven change-the-world type of place.
Is this a data-derived conclusion, or was this "sweet spot" which has resulted in record employee turnover derived without measurement? Can you find any San Francisco nonprofits with worse employee satisfaction scores on Glassdoor.com than the Foundation's? I haven't been able to.
We also have excellent benefits. I was recently married and my wife will be joining my health insurance on January 1 because it is more generous than hers (she works at an emergency room in the premier hospital in the area).
As someone who believes that Canadian style single payer health care is the only reasonable option for the U.S. at this point, I wonder how much this desensitizes you and your colleagues. Please see http://lanekenworthy.net/2011/07/10/americas-inefficient-health-care-system-...
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There are a number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are targeted at people I work with (some of them I consider friends), so it is very difficult for me to read this
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could think my proposal that the salaries of Foundation employees be increased so that none of them are less than 50% of the top executive salary is made in bad faith or "targeted" towards anyone.
Sincerely, James Salsman
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
are a
number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are targeted at people I work with (some of them I consider friends), so it
is
very difficult for me to read this
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could think my proposal that the salaries of Foundation employees be increased so that none of them are less than 50% of the top executive salary is made in bad faith or "targeted" towards anyone.
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe anyone could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on such ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract any experienced senior staff.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe anyone could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on such ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract any experienced senior staff.
As a comparison, Doctors Without Borders/MSF USA had a policy of paying the E.D. no more than 3 times the rate of the entry level positions. When I left at the end of 2004, the entry level salary was $35,000 and the E.D. was $105,000. Not sure what it is now.
On Dec 28, 2012 12:52 AM, "Matthew Roth" mroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe
anyone
could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on
such
ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract
any
experienced senior staff.
As a comparison, Doctors Without Borders/MSF USA had a policy of paying
the
E.D. no more than 3 times the rate of the entry level positions. When I left at the end of 2004, the entry level salary was $35,000 and the E.D. was $105,000. Not sure what it is now.
How are they structured? Was there another layer of management at the international level? $105k sounds very low for the top person in an organisation of any significant size.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On Dec 28, 2012 12:52 AM, "Matthew Roth" mroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe
anyone
could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on
such
ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract
any
experienced senior staff.
As a comparison, Doctors Without Borders/MSF USA had a policy of paying
the
E.D. no more than 3 times the rate of the entry level positions. When I left at the end of 2004, the entry level salary was $35,000 and the E.D. was $105,000. Not sure what it is now.
How are they structured? Was there another layer of management at the international level? $105k sounds very low for the top person in an organisation of any significant size.
That's what the E.D. probably thought :) and it was definitely scuttlebutt among folks at the office.
MSF was structured in some ways like WMF and its chapters. MSF USA was a "non-operational" chapter of the overall MSF, meaning that we raised funds and did recruitment of volunteers, but we were not allowed to organize any operations (i.e. missions in the field to administer aid). The five "operational" organizations were all in Europe: France, UK, Spain, Switzerland and Netherlands. Each of the 19 chapters had it's own organizational hierarchy.
I'm not sure about the compensation of the other chapters at MSF, but I imagine they were not compensated too much higher. This was one of the points of pride in maintaining the golden rule there (15% of money raised spent on admin, 85% spent on programs), so salaries were lower than peers like the IRC and others (ironically, another point of pride and similarity with us is that MSF also moved away from taking govt money).
MSF USA got its first operational mission in Guatemala in 2004 (soon followed by Nigeria). I imagine that trend has increased as the chapter "matured" so to speak.
Sorry to digress.
-Matthew
Le 27/12/2012 21:34, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
are a
number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are targeted at people I work with (some of them I consider friends), so it
is
very difficult for me to read this
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could think my proposal that the salaries of Foundation employees be increased so that none of them are less than 50% of the top executive salary is made in bad faith or "targeted" towards anyone.
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe anyone could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on such ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract any experienced senior staff.
Hello Thomas,
are you saying that NOBODY can and will do a good job for five times less money? There are extremely talented people in the third world, and extremely passionated people in the first world, that may accept such a pay. I'm dubious about your statement.
Cheers.
On Dec 28, 2012 1:02 AM, "cyrano" cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 27/12/2012 21:34, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
this is the most current iteration of a type of thread that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
are a
number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are targeted at people I work with (some of them I consider friends), so it
is
very difficult for me to read this
I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone could think my proposal that the salaries of Foundation employees be increased so that none of them are less than 50% of the top executive salary is made in bad faith or "targeted" towards anyone.
I suspect the assumption of bad faith is because he doesn't believe
anyone
could genuinely propose such a ridiculously bad idea. When limits on such ratios are discussed the usual figure I hear is a limit of 10%. 50% is completely unrealistic. Either you would have to massively overpay your junior staff (wasting donor's money) or you wouldn't be any to attract
any
experienced senior staff.
Hello Thomas,
are you saying that NOBODY can and will do a good job for five times less
money? There are extremely talented people in the third world, and extremely passionated people in the first world, that may accept such a pay. I'm dubious about your statement.
Well, I suppose "any" is a bit of an exaggeration. It would be extremely difficult though. Why would someone from the third world come to San Francisco and accept a salary 5 times lower than they could get at a similar organisation ?
Le 27/12/2012 22:12, Thomas Dalton a écrit :
Well, I suppose "any" is a bit of an exaggeration. It would be extremely difficult though. Why would someone from the third world come to San Francisco and accept a salary 5 times lower than they could get at a similar organisation ?
I don't understand how it matters, "Why". His or her reasons are his or her owns. Though I never met to imply that he or her should work in one of the most expensive places of Earth.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org