How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis... You only seem to be talking about one variable - the message. On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
That would be complex, and could be a disaster... I'd appreciate some input from folks like Tango. On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, "James Salsman" jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
I would prefer all Wikimedia organizations continue to make decisions based on what we really want to get done (i.e. our strategic goals and priorities), then find the money to do those things. Not the other way around.
Steven
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at all practical for the fundraising team to implement.
Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of recently concluded deliberations. People have work to do in January, February, and March. No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern for three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what internal projects will be supported. If you think there is a "talent retention" problem now, well if you had your way the current numbers would be blown out of the water by the coming stampede of departures.
BirgitteSB
On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms,
I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down.
Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
How do we even know that salary is a factor in people voluntarily leaving? Has it been established in exit interviews?
If I felt strongly about salary, I wouldnt have a problem speaking up, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Leslie
whether Fellowships should be
jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Leslie Carr lcarr@wikimedia.org wrote:
How do we even know that salary is a factor in people voluntarily leaving? Has it been established in exit interviews?
In engineering/product, 9 staff members (*) left in the 2012 calendar year, compared with a dept staff today of about 80. Compensation was not a significant factor in any of these departures, as far as I know.
5 were let go or mutually agreed that it was time to move on, and 4 left for their own reasons. For the folks we let go, the reasons typically were performance-related or fit in the broadest sense (someone can be great but it just turns out their core strengths don't align with what the org needs). Of the 4 who left entirely on their own, the primary reasons cited were:
- relocation to a different city/country - wanting to build their own project - a challenging and sometimes unappreciative/negative work environment - a difficult relationship with their manager and/or their colleagues - perceived lack of autonomy/scope, disagreements about direction.
The SF Bay Area is a weird place when it comes to tech compensation. Both expectations and realities differ wildly from place to place. I've had amazing engineers come to me with salary expectations that are 40% of what they could make at a major tech company. I've had mediocre devs expect to make 130K before even wanting to entertain the notion of working at Wikimedia.
We've generally tried hard, as Matthew notes, to find a good place for WMF in terms of compensation. It's below some companies that are similar to us, notably Mozilla which is structured as a for-profit owned by a non-profit and pays market-level compensation (sans equity). Wikimedia is above most non-profits that do tech work, and there's a fair bit of room to grow compensation-wise for an entry-level hire. It's not what people could make elsewhere, and that's understood by folks who make it through the process.
We've generally been open to have serious comp adjustment conversations both at the FY review and mid-year to adjust where it could be a major factor in retaining someone, and have gone significantly over budget in comp increases this year. I expect we will need to do so again next year, as compensation expectations are definitely growing faster than we've been able to maintain our place on the continuum due to the hot competition for talent.
But the main thing, to keep people motivated, in my experience is not money. Our job is to take money sufficiently out of the equation so people don't have to worry too much about it. Where that "not worry point" is differs greatly from person to person, and some people we're just not able to hire in the first place. But what matters to people in the long run is whether they're autonomous, whether they can develop their skills and grow, and whether they're doing it in a meaningful context.
This video summarizing some of the related research is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
I think we're exceptional at purpose, we're great at mastery, and we can do better at creating autonomy. (I think there's often more autonomy than people realize, but hierarchy can stifle people's sense of scope and the perceived ability to challenge what's seen as a top-down mandate.)
Cheers, Erik
(*) I'm not counting in the above contractors who didn't fill a requisition but were hired through an RFP and whose role was always conceived to be temporary.
On 12/29/12 9:01 PM, Leslie Carr wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms,
I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down.
Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
I am shocked you could not negotiate for those massages... Sue is a fan !
Flo
How do we even know that salary is a factor in people voluntarily leaving? Has it been established in exit interviews?
If I felt strongly about salary, I wouldnt have a problem speaking up, but please don't put words in my mouth.
Leslie
whether Fellowships should be
jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms,
I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down.
Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
So is this document, which states otherwise, obsolete? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_...
Some quotes: "annually in July, staff are eligible for a merit increase. " "The Wikimedia Foundation offers a benefits package for all staff, which includes medical, dental, vision and life insurance." "small services are provided such as coffee and soda. Food is occasionally also provided for working lunches or dinners, at the supervisors' discretion. In-office massage is provided monthly at a discounted rate." "once a month a staff lunch is provided. Once a quarter, a staff outing is staged. Once a year, there is a holiday party. " "staff are encouraged to work with their supervisors to plan for their professional development, which might include attending a professional conference, taking a course, or working with a coach. All spending on professional development is approved in advance by the supervisor." "the Wikimedia Foundation intends to launch a wellness program , in which staff will be reimbursed, within a set monthly limit, for expenses related to personal health and wellness. These might include for example the costs of counselling services, massage, yoga classes, or gym memberships." "Possibilities may include for example tuition reimbursements and the creation of a sabbatical program."
Those quotations don't really contradict anything he said (with the exception of the massages!). On Dec 30, 2012 1:10 AM, "cyrano" cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms,
I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down.
Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
So is this document, which states otherwise, obsolete? https://upload.wikimedia.org/**wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/** Wikimedia_Foundation_**Compensation_Practices.pdfhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf
Some quotes: "annually in July, staff are eligible for a merit increase. " "The Wikimedia Foundation offers a benefits package for all staff, which includes medical, dental, vision and life insurance." "small services are provided such as coffee and soda. Food is occasionally also provided for working lunches or dinners, at the supervisors' discretion. In-office massage is provided monthly at a discounted rate." "once a month a staff lunch is provided. Once a quarter, a staff outing is staged. Once a year, there is a holiday party. " "staff are encouraged to work with their supervisors to plan for their professional development, which might include attending a professional conference, taking a course, or working with a coach. All spending on professional development is approved in advance by the supervisor." "the Wikimedia Foundation intends to launch a wellness program , in which staff will be reimbursed, within a set monthly limit, for expenses related to personal health and wellness. These might include for example the costs of counselling services, massage, yoga classes, or gym memberships." "Possibilities may include for example tuition reimbursements and the creation of a sabbatical program."
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms,
I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down.
Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
So is this document, which states otherwise, obsolete? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_...
Some quotes: "annually in July, staff are eligible for a merit increase. " "The Wikimedia Foundation offers a benefits package for all staff, which includes medical, dental, vision and life insurance." "small services are provided such as coffee and soda. Food is occasionally also provided for working lunches or dinners, at the supervisors' discretion. In-office massage is provided monthly at a discounted rate." "once a month a staff lunch is provided. Once a quarter, a staff outing is staged. Once a year, there is a holiday party. " "staff are encouraged to work with their supervisors to plan for their professional development, which might include attending a professional conference, taking a course, or working with a coach. All spending on professional development is approved in advance by the supervisor." "the Wikimedia Foundation intends to launch a wellness program , in which staff will be reimbursed, within a set monthly limit, for expenses related to personal health and wellness. These might include for example the costs of counselling services, massage, yoga classes, or gym memberships." "Possibilities may include for example tuition reimbursements and the creation of a sabbatical program."
That's accurate. But there's no dentists onsite, no massage center, no chefs, no barista making my latte, etc, etc
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Leslie Carr lcarr@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's accurate. But there's no dentists onsite, no massage center, no chefs, no barista making my latte, etc, etc
I'm a pretty good barista, so for a small fee, I'd be happy to make your coffee ;)
Le 29/12/2012 22:14, Leslie Carr a écrit :
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit : I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get.
Cheers and happy new year!
On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/12/2012 22:14, Leslie Carr a écrit :
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit : I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee.
You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and
you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get.
I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is
not saying "here is an extremity, I get less" - she's saying "here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less". In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made.
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Le 02/01/2013 18:42, Oliver Keyes a écrit :
On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and
you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get.
I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is
not saying "here is an extremity, I get less" - she's saying "here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less". In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made.
I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/01/2013 18:42, Oliver Keyes a écrit :
On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and
you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get.
I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is
not saying "here is an extremity, I get less" - she's saying "here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less". In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made.
I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic.
I think you missed my point. I was saying that we don't need those things and it would be irresponsible of us to try to keep up with the average Tech company, as James Salsman had suggested.
Leslie
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 2 January 2013 22:50, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/01/2013 18:42, Oliver Keyes a écrit :
On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.fawkes@gmail.com wrote:
You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and
you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get.
I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is
not saying "here is an extremity, I get less" - she's saying "here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//**insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less". In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear
to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made.
I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic.
I think it's worth considering, but I wouldn't say it has any specific
ramifications. So, the donations are given to a universal cause. This universal cause is free knowledge for all, which is an incredibly worthwhile thing (I wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Well, okay, so I'm a massive pedant. I'd probably still be editing ;p). For us to be able to achieve that cause, we need lots of things: volunteers, to curate the content. Reliable hosting space for that content. People building newer and better features and fixing software bugs to make the process of volunteering as painless as possible. Revenue streams to support all of the above. The last one requires us to be able to attract world-class talent in Engineering, Fundraising and all our other departments and teams, and talented people tend to be clustered around major metropolitan areas like the Bay, which was one of (if not the main) reason, iirc, that the Foundation moved to SF from St Petersburg, FL in the first place. We are ultimately pulled along by reality and human nature, and for the moment, both of those things seem to prefer clustering of talent and the inevitable cost upswing it produces.
Now, me, I live in Cardiff, Wales. The cost of living is a lot cheaper than in SF (as I mock my friends about every time I visit). I can survive relatively nicely on what I'm paid, although I benefit from not having dependants or a mortgage or whatnot. But nobody goes to Cardiff to recruit engineers or most other people - they go to London. They don't go to St Petersburg, they go to SF. And so we have to, and we have to rebalance our cost expectations accordingly.
Of course, if we're talking *global* costs - a heck of a lot of people are going to fall above the mean. I am, here in Cardiff ;p. A more productive measurement is where we fall in balancing our non-profit status and the market in that section we care about: skilled, brilliant maniacs with the best of intentions. And I'm very proud of the Foundation for finding a middle ground in that market - between the "industry going rate" and a salary situation that would make it untenable for the people they're trying to recruit.
At the same time, I'm *incredibly* proud of the people who come to work for us. I'm an editor; being here is, from my point of view, the best possible situation. I've literally turned my hobby into a job :D. But I walked into an environment populated by people who not only feel the same way, but walked away from a heck of a lot of creature comforts to work for an org they could believe in. I don't think we recognise this often enough.
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org