In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, swatjester@gmail.com writes:
Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there.
On 19 November 2010 19:24, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, swatjester@gmail.com writes:
Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Risker/Anne
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote:
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions:
Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers?
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate".
The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation.
[1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990... [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.p...
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote:
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions:
Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers?
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate".
The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation.
[1]:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990... [2]:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.p...
I've never heard of a major charity in the world without at least some paid employees. Some of the largest charities, like the Red Cross, have thousands of employees including highly compensated executives. The type of work the Foundation does requires full time staff with considerable talent and experience. It's unrealistic to expect the Foundation to acquire these resources without fair compensation. Do you have the right background, and would you work 40 hours a week for free with no benefits? If not, why should anyone else? While we're on the subject of you, can you tell us your current occupation and your annual salary? If you'd prefer not to disclose it, perhaps you can understand why others may not appreciate it either.
In any case, the law presents both an obligation to report certain facts and an obligation to keep other facts confidential. The Foundation discloses what it needs to, and even were the WMF a for-profit corporation and you an actual shareholder you would be entitled to no more detail than that.
Nathan
Slightly different reply from Nathan here.
The project and foundation exist to produce and distribute free knowledge. Every dime that is raised goes to cause "someone to profit". The bandwidth that's bought, the servers purchased, the desktops and other matters, they are almost all provided at commercial rates and for the provider's profits.
As part of its mission the foundation also needs human skills. Those skills need to be dedicated, contractual, continual, trained in specific niches, long term, committed, available as needed, and full time for the most part.
Ultimately the decision is because as a charitable foundation, WMF can deliver its mission far more if it identifies providers of those skills at commercial rates, pays them, and acquires funds by donation to do so, than if it sought to obtain those services without pay by volunatry effort.
FT2
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote:
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on
29
April 2010. Link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions:
Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers?
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$
income)
Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate".
The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation.
[1]:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
[2]:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.p...
I've never heard of a major charity in the world without at least some paid employees. Some of the largest charities, like the Red Cross, have thousands of employees including highly compensated executives. The type of work the Foundation does requires full time staff with considerable talent and experience. It's unrealistic to expect the Foundation to acquire these resources without fair compensation. Do you have the right background, and would you work 40 hours a week for free with no benefits? If not, why should anyone else? While we're on the subject of you, can you tell us your current occupation and your annual salary? If you'd prefer not to disclose it, perhaps you can understand why others may not appreciate it either.
In any case, the law presents both an obligation to report certain facts and an obligation to keep other facts confidential. The Foundation discloses what it needs to, and even were the WMF a for-profit corporation and you an actual shareholder you would be entitled to no more detail than that.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 02:40, Nathan wrote:
I've never heard of a major charity in the world without at least some paid employees.
Hello Nathan.
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
Being paid and receiving very high salaries are two different things. It seems you're talking about the first. I'm talking about the second.
Some of the largest charities, like the Red Cross, have thousands of employees including highly compensated executives.
"Red Cross" and "Corruption" yield more than a million pages on google. Here's a sample (from 2005)[1]: "Despite landing in trouble for soliciting more donations than they need and squirreling the rest away, the Red Cross continues to operate this way. [...] Last year alone, the Red Cross spent $111 million in fund raising, and their CEO Marsha Evans made just under $652,000. It seems the the main value they offer is the free help of their volunteer force."
Your comparison with the Red Cross is indeed insightful about what kind of profit can be done with a non-profit organization and how unethical behaviors can be found in ethical causes.
The type of work the Foundation does requires full time staff with considerable talent and experience. It's unrealistic to expect the Foundation to acquire these resources without fair compensation.
You think that nobody amidst the hundred of thousands of motivated volunteers would have the skills while accepting to work for a decent and humble salary. I'd like to prove you wrong, if there were a authentic will from the Foundation to have a try.
[some stuff reducing the problem to my person]
I think that shifting the debate to my insignificant person is pointless and uninteresting. If you're really interested about my person, which I doubt, we can talk on another channel.
In any case, the law presents both an obligation to report certain facts and an obligation to keep other facts confidential. The Foundation discloses what it needs to, and even were the WMF a for-profit corporation and you an actual shareholder you would be entitled to no more detail than that.
That's the US centric, legal aspect. But what about the ethical aspect and the big picture? Here's an article from 2003 [2], well worth the reading, that shows some dangers of nonprofits. An excerpt: "In recent years AIP has seen nonprofits increasingly attempt to silence their employees. We believe that nonprofit groups should discontinue employee contracts or severance agreements that contractually disallow employees or former employees to speak to outsiders about serious organizational problems. This serves to stop most employees or potential whistleblowers, who could warn the public of mismanagement or serious ethical breaches that charity executives may be attempting to cover up."
[1]: http://www.damninteresting.com/can-we-trust-the-red-cross [2]:
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been.
I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. - From there I see three paths: - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage in higher ethics. - - alert the community
Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening.
Noein, you keep saying that the community does or does not believe a certain way. To my knowledge there have been no studies of socioeconomic perspectives and policies of community members to support your argument. If there are and I'm mistaken, I'd love to know as that would be very interesting information.
Dan
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 20, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been.
I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community.
- From there I see three paths:
- ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong
- help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage
in higher ethics.
- alert the community
Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6J4+AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LU3kH+wQgX5M44Hi6m9GTr/sJpC2G pPSvxQe3b/P+K5zunFU0G9CIs47F3xLPYvQ5vhkSZVOVUvKPvuOr5WGME8rck4VA e8CjAIQ+HQr4YY82DeiNuYA/19e7zRqKLS4PS9ham6z1opHVPy5rzA8yqbo0EMU6 FtjHNvJEGsM1HQ6Eq9lRAm5bJBC50tx7VxPtA1DjFam1Fv2DY78XB3j6WcFzsc4t WYHSzu5KgevkQs5LijZCtCeetkpaCwdCalwvRlPln8hD1yZVay/IWnCI+x7KxM9K CItpWox5/ZkOiNdbzK4qxSJOCdSu6fuagx7OuGejZLnn19u9U5AFw+Ml2VtzATE= =Nny+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote:
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by "Imagine".
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been.
I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community.
- From there I see three paths:
- ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong
- help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to
engage in higher ethics.
- alert the community
Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening.
Please tell us exactly what your philosophy is and what we should do if we chose to follow it. What would change? If you think a constitution or charter is needed what would that contain?
Fred Bauder
On 21 November 2010 04:21, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
I'm afraid I have little respect for the ideas you're expressing here because they seem silly, and more silly the more you explain of them.
I could of course be wrong, but you're not helping your ideas any yourself.
The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia.
Because your ideas don't match how accepted practice of running a viable charity works.
You may consider the accepted practice appalling, but doing things in an accepted manner is necessary for a charity to be allowed to exist and operate in the real world.
Wikimedia is already weird compared to other charities - we've had an absolute arse of a time with things like our Guidestar rating, because they don't work so well for charities with a volunteer:staff ratio on the order of 10,000:1.
What you're advocating is a whole new system of running a charity. This is an excellent idea. But you haven't made any convincing case why Wikimedia should be the test case.
What is your familiarity with the operation of charities in general?
The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community.
This is a statement that requires a citation. I believe it is flatly incorrect and your perceptions are well out of sync with the various communities. So please detail the evidence you have otherwise for us. (I see one other person has already asked for your sources for this assertion.)
- d.
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein pronoein@gmail.com wrote:
You think that nobody amidst the hundred of thousands of motivated volunteers would have the skills while accepting to work for a decent and humble salary. I'd like to prove you wrong, if there were a authentic will from the Foundation to have a try.
As someone who has dealings with the legal issues thrown up by wikipedia (mostly the copyright stuff) I can state we have very few if any lawyers with expertise in the relevant areas and any we do have are fairly happily employed elsewhere.
The amount the foundation pays for legal services is one area where it's doing fairly well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote:
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions:
Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers?
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate".
The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation.
Top law school graduates in the United States are offered salaries in that range for their first job. It is a modest salary for highly experienced counsel as are the other salaries disclosed.
Fred Bauder
A couple quick points: * Average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $2,282/month. If you exclude the neighborhoods where you're likely to get shot, it's more like $2500-$3000. * I believe "Salary and other compensation" includes payment to contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't counted as employees).
If you factor those in you may understand why I spend over 50% of my paycheck on rent, commute 45 minutes to work, drive a car from 1973, and eat microwave burritos. Either that or my "western, capitalist, materialist and proprietary cultural bias" has gone seriously haywire :)
Ryan Kaldari
On 11/20/10 4:16 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote:
The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990...
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions:
Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers?
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they "don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate".
The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation.
Top law school graduates in the United States are offered salaries in that range for their first job. It is a modest salary for highly experienced counsel as are the other salaries disclosed.
Fred Bauder
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income).
I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers.
I live in US and I work in public accounting. As part of my work I have to look through numerous payroll schedules for various companies. WMF salaries are very reasonable. They do not simply profit from volunteer work. They work hard and do an amazing job. They deserve every penny they get. If you think about it: if they chose to go into for-profit fields, they would be getting substantially larger paychecks. But they decided to forgo that personal benefit. So they are not profiting, they in fact sacrificing.... and I am extremely greatful.
Renata
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org