Gregory Maxwell wrote:

It is my understanding that if we have true employees in a nation that our organization will have a legal presence in that nation. If we have a legal presence in that nation, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of that nation.

It would definitely require us to have someone familiar with the relevant laws, both U.S. and international, go over such a proposal and tell us what its legal implications are. In particular, employment law is complicated. From a legal perspective, a U.S. entity hiring a foreign employee could be considered outsourcing, and there are some U.S. laws designed to discourage outsourcing which may or may not apply. We would also need to be familiar with employment-related laws in the hiree's country of residence, and plan for them appropriately; for example, countries differ greatly in how easy it is to fire people, and in the kinds of additional requirements or obligations incumbent on employers.

-Mark

Hoi, An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a week. An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the organisation. An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option to say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".

These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that I did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial list. When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where we do not have the volunteers to do these tasks.

Thanks, GerardM

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

On 05/03/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:

...

On 3/5/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote: [snip]

...

• we wish to involve people from all over the world, not restricting

employees to USA only. Currently, those working "offshore" have to be their own employers (they are contractants). This is not sustainable

in

...

...

the long run, so we have to explore more international employment

issues.

...

[snip]

First off, I'm terrified to raise this point in public because I know that there are people here who will scream that I'm some kind of nationalist bigot for bringing this up. But I think it's a very serious matter which demands the input and understanding of a wide audience.

It is my understanding that if we have true employees in a nation that our organization will have a legal presence in that nation. If we have a legal presence in that nation, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of that nation.

It would be ideal that our activities would generally be so far away from the ambiguous grey areas of the law that the differing legal behavior would not be a substantial issue for us. However, this just isn't the case today. We benefit substantially from detailed aspects of US law in the areas of libel, copyright, and privacy.

*Does operating the foundation with regular employees in a nation create a jurisdictional issue as I described? *How can we avoid this risk while maintaining the agility to hire useful people from any part of the world? *What are the qualities and risks of various jurisdictions? *How can we deal with the impact of being subject to multiple

jurisdictions?

...

I fear that in the worst case being directly subject to the laws of many nations we may find our entire method of operation (open access Wikis) to be too risky.

A related question: what would an online employee bring to Wikimedia that online volunteers couldn't? If the answer is not much, then perhaps resources could be better spent elsewhere. This is not to say that I don't look forward to the day when the Foundation has employees in several countries with different backgrounds, perspectives and skills, but the expense of acheiving this must be justified.

-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, There may be many people volunteering their time. There is a great lack of people for specific functions.

Yes, volunteers are given tasks/responsibilities. It is however up to them to decide what they want to do and when they do them. They are volunteers, they cannot be told. The notion of relying on a specific task to be done in a certain time frame is something you CAN demand of an employee not from a volunteer.

PS I have some sort of official capacity; I am a member of the language committee. Some people say that we take our time. I would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks, GerardM

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

On 05/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, An employee brings minimally as his/her commitment to work 40 hours a

week.

...

An employee can be told to do what is deemed necessary by the

organisation.

...

An employee is part of an hierarchy and he/she does not have the option

to

...

say "Sorry, but like you I am a volunteer".

These are all things that are really relevant differences. Strange that

I

...

did not have to think hard nor long to come up with just this initial

list.

...

When I think of it, a professional can be hired to do the things where

we do

...

not have the volunteers to do these tasks.

Thanks, GerardM

Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.

-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

On 05/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, There may be many people volunteering their time. There is a great lack of people for specific functions.

Yes, volunteers are given tasks/responsibilities. It is however up to them to decide what they want to do and when they do them. They are volunteers, they cannot be told. The notion of relying on a specific task to be done in a certain time frame is something you CAN demand of an employee not from a volunteer.

PS I have some sort of official capacity; I am a member of the language committee. Some people say that we take our time. I would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks, GerardM

I understand what you're saying about volunteers not being obligated to the foundation and that even trusted volunteers may have a tough time justifying getting out of bed in the morning for the Foundation, but I think the level of obligation many of our users feel to the project is comparable to the the obligation felt by an employee and could be put to use.

If a volunteer strongly believes in the work of the foundation, has shown commitment to the project through positions of trust, has shown that they will do at least X hours a day, and has assumed much responsibility then I think they could be trusted with a position.

I agree, there are some critical jobs with time-sensitivity that cannot be left to volunteers, but volunteers should be used as extensively as possible.

In my opinion, there's no question but that volunteers who are able to consistently deliver can accomplish many things.

There are also things that they can't reliably accomplish, because family, work, and other aspects of "having a life" will prevent them from focusing 20-30 hours on a particularly hard problem. There are a few exceptions - retired people, independently rich people, and unemployed spouses come to mind - but in general, we cannot expect people to dedicate work-like effort to the project on a volunteer basis.

Adding internal employees is not taking work away from volunteers, it's enabling the community as a whole to get some things done that require more time and focus than volunteers can bring to the role.

Charitable nonprofits, even those with large volunteer pools, use full time paid employees. They do so for very good reasons...

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote: [snip]

I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited resources,

[snip]

Perhaps "a charity with limited resources" is the wrong mindset to an extent. "A charity which is not yet effective at bringing in supporting funding given its exposure" is probably a lot more accurate.

It's true that all charities need to be wise with their spending, but the same is also true of virtually all businesses. I like to think of our position as unusually 'poor' to be more of a temporary situation which we should be attempting to cure. Once past that hump we can stop letting "how can we best save money" get in the way of "how can we best perform our mission" in the situations where those two goals diverge.

I welcome off-list data on the viewer/donation and fund drive take rate ratios of other NPOs. :)

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

I wanted to bring this up because, as a charity with limited resources, it is something that should be explored and discussed. I am aware that some employees are necessary: some tasks are too critical, time sensitive or large to be left to volunteers. Where do we draw this line? When does it become too much work to use volunteers for a particular task?

As a first answer, when the Board figures that it needs something done badly enough to start suggesting that they need to hire someone. 8-)

The Board can explain in more detail their thinking on this, and it's probably a good idea for them to do so. My impression from the outside is that they're probably right and that it's probably about time to do so, if not past it. But I'm not involved in a lot of the community activities intimately, so I don't know how accurate my impression is.

I agree that this is a good conversation to have. Both more employees and more effeciently focused volunteer efforts on problem areas will both help. Information flow on the percieved trouble spots helps everyone see what needs to be done.

On 3/5/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

Sandy is not the only one answering the press, very far from it. At least a dozen people answer the press on a daily basis. But by answering in the office, setting up press contact database, drafting press releases, trying to coordinate press interviews, working on PR crisis, she is of unvaluable help. And we are happier because we are *sure* someone is taking care of this. That's a weight lifted. We still need a lot of volunteer help, but she is really reducing concerns for many of us.

And, my subjective impression is that volunteer activity has also greatly increased since she joined. The very fact that at least one person is constantly working on these issues (and discusses them with the ComCom) appears to energize people.

And, of course, that is exactly the reason we are advertising the role of Volunteer Coordinator with such high priority, even before hiring other people who are very much needed. We strongly believe that mobilizing and coordinating volunteers is going to be key to building a sustainable organization. Some of these volunteers may eventually become hired staff -- and that, so far, seems to have worked well.

In general, I believe we're going in the right direction. While it's easy to point to established volunteer driven organizations, it's important to recognize that there are very few that are almost completely Internet-driven. The Debian project is perhaps one of the best examples to learn from (both their strengths and their weaknesses). But in many ways, we are unique. That keeps things interesting. :-)

On 3/5/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

Someone to coordinate volunteers is the way to go. [snip]

I'd apply for the job myself but being a sysadmin pays too well ;-p

AFAIK no salary has yet been set for the position. Why not apply anyway, and state in your letter how much you currently get paid?

Anthony

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.

I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible for them to put in more than a few hours a week. So you could say: why not hire a lot of volunteers that just do a little bit of work? The problem there is that lack of communication, variety of approaches to solving tasks compounded by geographic diversifcation will make it very unlikely that such an arrangement can be effective and efficient. This holds especially for the kind of jobs Florence was talking about. Unless we're talking about small, well-contained tasks, volunteers just won't be able to do them in a speedy manner.

Regards,

Sebastian

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

I certainly agree that managing 12 volunteers doing a few hours a week would be more difficult than 2 employees, but as a not-for-profit charity there's no harm in exploring the feasability of relying on volunteers.

You mention communication. Volunteers given these positions would be aware that they're doing an important job: they should feel obligated to working a particular number hours of week and should also feel obligated to inform the Foundation when they are unable to fulfil this. The Foundation could contact them over the phone or by e-mail: I can't see it being hard to contact volunteers.

With communication, I was particularly referring to communication between volunteers when they share a task. Let's say there's some sort of work that could be estimated to take 10 man hours. If you have 5 volunteers doing that, the loss of productivity due to the necessity to communicate between them is immense unless the task is ridiculously mundane. These aren't theoretical guess either, there's tons of literature out there that show projects that failed due to the complexity of communication involved.

Regards,

Sebastian

P.S. Of course, you can always argue that something "shouldn't" be this way or that people "should" behave in a certain manner, that alone won't make it happen though, especially with volunteers. The relationship between a volunteer and his superior is rather different from that of an employee and his superior. In the former, motivation to perform can change much more subtly and requires additional efforts which, in the case of the foundation, isn't feasible since its precisely the lack of staff that caused this discussion.

Oldak Quill wrote:

On 05/03/07, Sebastian Moleski sebmol@gmail.com wrote:

...

I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible for them to put in more than a few hours a week. So you could say: why not hire a lot of volunteers that just do a little bit of work? The problem there is that lack of communication, variety of approaches to solving tasks compounded by geographic diversifcation will make it very unlikely that such an arrangement can be effective and efficient. This holds especially for the kind of jobs Florence was talking about. Unless we're talking about small, well-contained tasks, volunteers just won't be able to do them in a speedy manner.

I certainly agree that managing 12 volunteers doing a few hours a week would be more difficult than 2 employees, but as a not-for-profit charity there's no harm in exploring the feasability of relying on volunteers.

You mention communication. Volunteers given these positions would be aware that they're doing an important job: they should feel obligated to working a particular number hours of week and should also feel obligated to inform the Foundation when they are unable to fulfil this. The Foundation could contact them over the phone or by e-mail: I can't see it being hard to contact volunteers.

This is naive. I am very much in support of of maximum volunteer inpout. You cannot oblige anybody to work a specified number of hours per week unless they are getting something out of it. That something may still be intangible, like personal satisfaction, instead of money; pure altruism is unlikely to be enough. When you start to hassle them by phone or whatever they're more likely to say, "Screw you!" and go away.

Ec

There are many ways in which people can express their respect for fellow volunteers. The giving of barn-stars is one of them, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars That also gives people "status"

On 3/6/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:

On 3/5/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

...

You cannot oblige anybody to work a specified number of hours per week unless they are getting something out of it. That something may still be intangible, like personal satisfaction, instead of money; pure altruism is unlikely to be enough.

What's the difference between having personal satisfaction as the only reward and pure altruism? Even if there's a philosophical difference, there doesn't seem to be a practical one.

That said, a common intangible reward for volunteers is status in a hierarchical system. Everything2 has its experience system. Slashdot has its karma system. The volunteer fire department has probies and drivers and officers etc. The Wikimedia community has some hierarchy, but not a lot, and there are strong feelings that it not be used as a reward. It'd be perfectly possible to require all admins to commit to 2 hours a week of some particular duty to stay admins, and many people would still sign up for adminship, but the culture of Wikimedia is such that this would probably cause a huge backlash.

Anthony

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Oldak Quill wrote:

On 06/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:

...

This is naive. I am very much in support of of maximum volunteer input. You cannot oblige anybody to work a specified number of hours per week unless they are getting something out of it. That something may still be intangible, like personal satisfaction, instead of money; pure altruism is unlikely to be enough.

Surely those who volunteer their time and energy to Wikimedia projects are in some way committed to what the Foundation is trying to achieve? If this is the case, then most of our volunteers *do* get satisfaction out of their work. I don't think this satisfaction would disappear if they started being asked to do tasks rather than electing to do them. Volunteers would volunteer to their own areas of interest, after all. Perhaps I misunderstand you?

The range of task available to be done on Wikipedia. Very few of us will find that even a norrowly defined box of tasks is ever exhauted. It is a mistake to think that because you can adapt to having a larger box of tasks handed to you, others will react the same way to such circumstances. Someone's refusal to expand his box of tasks does not imply a lessened committment to Wikipedia. You can ask volunteers to do additional tasks, but you cannot oblige them to do those tasks.

...

When you start to hassle them by phone or whatever they're more likely to say, "Screw you!" and go away.

If someone volunteers to a position that involves phone communication then they I would guess that they'd understand why it was necessary. I'm not denying that they'd sometimes get annoyed.

Very few of us have volunteered to be involved in telephone communication.

Similarly, I feel committed to what the Foundation is aiming to achieve. I started to get involved with Wikimedia by editing articles on Wikipedia. I was pleased to be adding to a free encyclopedia. I loved the fact that what I added could be adapted and reused without ever becoming unfree. I slowly began to appreciate the aims of the Foundation on a far more philosophical level. It is this kind of philosophical commitment that allows me to stand in the cold for a couple of hours and would allow me to be relied upon in a specified voluntary position.

Philosophical committment comes with time, but a volunteer must still give priority to real life.

Ec

Sebastian Moleski wrote:

I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible for them to put in more than a few hours a week.

I'm not sure actually putting in a lot of time is a problem, but I do agree that employees are better for some things, mainly because of consistency. If it's a job that *has* to be done every single week reliably, then an unpaid volunteer is not necessarily the best choice. I've worked on Wikipedia-related things for much more than 40 hours some weeks, but I could not *commit* to working 40 hours every single week unless I were being paid to do it, because I have other obligations for my "real life" that sometimes pop up. As a volunteer I could commit to "x hours over the next year", even where [x] is large, but I couldn't commit to being available at any specific time or even specific week. Since presumably a consistent volunteer coordinator would work better than one who was available 80 hours one week and 0 the next, I can see the advantage of hiring someone for the role.

-Mark

On 05/03/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:

On 3/5/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:

...

If it's a job that *has* to be done every single week reliably, then an unpaid volunteer is not necessarily the best choice.

Not necessarily, but possibly. I used to be an unpaid volunteer firefighter, and there were lots of things we did that *had* to be done every single week reliably.

One difference with Wikimedia projects is that the job is not as important - lives don't literally hang in the balance. But another difference which could more easily be made a similarity is that Wikimedia volunteers aren't as effectively organized. Volunteer firefighters were unpaid, but we still had a boss, we still had rules, we still had to submit applications, and go to meetings, etc. When it came time to send out fundraising letters, we were expected to put in our time and do it, even though few of us would have volunteered to do *that* job. Our boss (the fire chief), was paid, but not as a full-time salary, and he had a full time job too.

For most Wikimedia volunteers, none of this formality is necessary, of course. But for some other things it might work. If a competent person is hired as volunteer coordinator I'm sure this will become much more clear.

The life-and-death aspect of volunteer firefighting is not the only aspect of the job that makes you feel obligated to fulfilling it as if it were a paid position. Contracts are signed, uniforms are worn, there is a work place: cues and mechanisms associated with a paid job. Not all of these cues are necessary to highly obligated and committed volunteers: contracted workers who do not wear uniforms, save lives or attend a workplace feel obligation to fulfil their duties. Similarly, Wikimedia Foundation does not need to put all of these cues in place to develop a more robust volunteer base.

There are many steps which the Foundation could take to make volunteers feel the obligation and commitment of a contracted worker. For example, volunteer co-coordinators (who may themselves be volunteers) would be a big step to drawing a reliable group of volunteers out who could fulfil complex and time-consuming tasks. These co-coordinators give volunteers a point-of-contact; they also help to keep volunteers focused on tasks, &c. There are many similar mechanisms the Foundation could put in place to develop a workable volunteer-based infrastructure.

As Erik says, though we may be relatively unique, we can still learn from other organisations who rely on volunteers in a way we should do.

Sebastian Moleski wrote:

On 3/5/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

...

Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little difference. Is there a reason why Wikimedia Foundation can't contract volunteers (as charity shops do)? Similarly, there is no reason why the Foundation can't give official positions to volunteers who can be trusted to work a minimum number of hours a week (with or without a contract). Such volunteers would be given a job description and be asked to do things by the Foundation in the way an employee would.

I've recruited and manged a great number of volunteers while working at a university. The main problem with them is that, unless they have some sort of alternative source of income/wealth, it's just not economically feasible for them to put in more than a few hours a week. So you could say: why not hire a lot of volunteers that just do a little bit of work? The problem there is that lack of communication, variety of approaches to solving tasks compounded by geographic diversifcation will make it very unlikely that such an arrangement can be effective and efficient. This holds especially for the kind of jobs Florence was talking about. Unless we're talking about small, well-contained tasks, volunteers just won't be able to do them in a speedy manner.

Add to that the fact that many volunteers here are dilletantes who prefer to go on to something else when they are bored with a task, and the prospects of getting the tediously repetitive tasks done by volunteers is very poor. I don't think that employment needs to be defined in terms of the 40-hour week. Contracts to accomplish certain tasks within a specified time would be more practical.

Ec

On 3/6/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:

On 05/03/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: Based on the fact that Wikimedia Foundation has such a large pool of volunteers, I think the 40 hour week difference makes little difference.

I have a different opinion. Even among the most involved people, - we have seen some people vanished without notice (remember the last summer; two other Election officials vanished and I was getting mad alone with around 20 candidates who should have been contacted until the end of month). - we asked a task for the community and no one have showed interest (see Wikimania Website; there are a bunch of information about Taiwan, helpful for excursion, but all in Chinese, no one cares about those or has no time to care about those).

It is an illusion "we have a pool". Sadly but it is our reality. Instead, I heard again and again "sorry but I am not interested in" "I am now occupied". I don't take it wrong, simply they have more important things in their view of life. It is possible our need and theirs don't simply match. But it is far from sustainability which Florence said the Foundation would pursue at the beginning of this year.

On the other hand, employees and contractors are bound with contract and duty. Volunteers not. And they will do their job in a certain hours. Volunteers not necessarily. That is why we need to have the Foundation employ people to bring sustainability.

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

On 3/5/07, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote: [snip]

...

• we wish to involve people from all over the world, not restricting

employees to USA only. Currently, those working "offshore" have to be their own employers (they are contractants). This is not sustainable in the long run, so we have to explore more international employment issues.

[snip]

First off, I'm terrified to raise this point in public because I know that there are people here who will scream that I'm some kind of nationalist bigot for bringing this up. But I think it's a very serious matter which demands the input and understanding of a wide audience.

It is my understanding that if we have true employees in a nation that our organization will have a legal presence in that nation. If we have a legal presence in that nation, we will be subject to the jurisdiction of that nation.

Sometimes. In reality it depends on what aspects of that country's laws you are considering. Simply having an employee leads to the question of what that employee's duties are.

It would be ideal that our activities would generally be so far away from the ambiguous grey areas of the law that the differing legal behavior would not be a substantial issue for us. However, this just isn't the case today. We benefit substantially from detailed aspects of US law in the areas of libel, copyright, and privacy.

Why would this need to be an issue? If the employee's duties relate to these matters that could be the case, but that is only likely to affect him personally. A legal action against WMF in such other country is always possible, but that could also happen without an employee there.

*Does operating the foundation with regular employees in a nation create a jurisdictional issue as I described?

Not usually.

*How can we avoid this risk while maintaining the agility to hire useful people from any part of the world?

Every country has different laws. It makes no sense to try to answer this unless you have a clear idea about which country you will be hiring from.

*What are the qualities and risks of various jurisdictions?

What do you mean by qualities? Risks can be so varied that there can be no single answer.

*How can we deal with the impact of being subject to multiple jurisdictions?

The same as we always have.

I fear that in the worst case being directly subject to the laws of many nations we may find our entire method of operation (open access Wikis) to be too risky.

This is unfounded speculation.

To whatever extent people are employed in various countries it should be as contractual workers. The laws that should be of most concern are those relating to employment stantards, taxation, social security and related matters. My experience has been that compliance attemps from outside the country in these areas can involve disastrous misunderstandings of law. Even within the United States the applications of another state's laws can be very confusing. Remembering that Florida does not have a state personal income tax dealing with just this for out-of-state employees can be a burden. Having employed one person for a position does not mean that when he eventually leaves that position his successor will be from the same country. That would then mean reviewing this every time a new employee comes on board.

Ec