I don't know any of these people personally, but $128k a year for a legal expert of Mike Godwin's stature and experience sounds like a bargain, not an unreasonable expense. Given that WMF needs competent legal representation, and given that the WMF is not exactly flush with cash, we should be thanking Mike for essentially taking a pay cut compared to what he could probably have made in the for-profit sector.
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (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).
Regards, Craig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 09:37, Craig Franklin wrote:
I don't know any of these people personally, but $128k a year for a legal expert of Mike Godwin's stature and experience sounds like a bargain, not an unreasonable expense. Given that WMF needs competent legal representation, and given that the WMF is not exactly flush with cash, we should be thanking Mike for essentially taking a pay cut compared to what he could probably have made in the for-profit sector.
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (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).
Thank you everybody for explaining your views. Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who are just good enough to give their money and effort. As a matter of fact, their society seems organized to maximize money and it is echoed in their opinion about how to manage this huge collaborative effort about knowledge called Wikipedia.
This conditioned acceptance - conditioned in the sense that it seems natural and the only imaginable solution - reflects a strong, current, ubiquitous, western, capitalist, materialist and proprietary cultural bias.
The alternatives are infinite, though. I would like to know what you think of complementarity, creativity, liberty, conviviality, sharing, and optimizing (instead of maximizing) for example. Are they completely out of your scope, out of your hopes and wishes?
My understanding of the Social Contract of Debian that Milos mentioned [1] is not as a legal policies but as ethical policies. I don't feel it has been properly discussed yet.
[1]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract
On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Noein wrote:
Thank you everybody for explaining your views. Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who are just good enough to give their money and effort. As a matter of fact, their society seems organized to maximize money and it is echoed in their opinion about how to manage this huge collaborative effort about knowledge called Wikipedia.
I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what I've seen from the replies so far. I think a more accurate representation is that you place transparency as a higher priority than personal privacy, even when such transparency is beyond what is necessary and would cause harm to the individual, on the sake of principle; you also seem unwilling to accept that employees can be paid a competitive salary and provide a valuable service to the foundation that merits such a salary (despite that we pay well below competitive salaries for attorneys -- as Fred Bauder pointed out, the standard salary for a first year attorney (or a 2nd year law student as a summer associate) at a major New York or D.C. law firm is 160,000 before bonuses -- more than Mike makes. ) But it is a ridiculous assertion to suggest that people on this list believe in a world of cold, unfeeling, unfettered capitalism where the acquisition of money is the single highest priority in life.
Your perspective seems to be that Gordon Gekko would be right at home working for Wikimedia. My experience with the staff over the years has been the exact opposite.
-Dan
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Noein wrote:
Thank you everybody for explaining your views. Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who are just good enough to give their money and effort. As a matter of fact, their society seems organized to maximize money and it is echoed in their opinion about how to manage this huge collaborative effort about knowledge called Wikipedia.
I think this is a gross misrepresentation of what I've seen from the replies so far. I think a more accurate representation is that you place transparency as a higher priority than personal privacy, even when such transparency is beyond what is necessary and would cause harm to the individual, on the sake of principle; you also seem unwilling to accept that employees can be paid a competitive salary and provide a valuable service to the foundation that merits such a salary ...
Incidentally, San Francisco and surrounding area is not an especially cheap area to live in. For those unfamiliar with the area, here are some housing prices for the area that the office is located in: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa?query=soma&srchType=A&minAsk=...
I'm sure everyone is used to doing the math of whether it's possible to live somewhere on a given salary or not (take off 25-35% for taxes, figure in rent, add internet and cell phone, figure that you might need to eat occasionally etc. etc.). I think that it is fair to state that the WMF is not enabling extravagant lifestyles. If we were, then that would be something to worry about. But we're not.
But this is basically beside the point, which is that the major decision is deciding whether or not the WMF should hire someone to do a particular job -- do we need a staff person in that role? What would that role contribute to the whole organization? -- then finding the right person for that role. Once that's done I'd argue we have a moral imperative to pay that person a fair and comfortable living wage, one that indicates that we value both them and their work; while also not abusing the trust of those who donate their own hard-earned money to fund the organization, and recognizing that as a nonprofit none of us are in the business to get wealthy and that often we must in fact scrape by on a shoestring. However, each person in the organization is an investment -- and as such the organization should take care of them and pay for them fairly, if possible, even if it's generally not at all up to market rate.
From personal experience -- spending quite a bit of time at the office
and with the staff -- I can say without reservation that our staff is devoted and exceptionally hardworking; we ask a lot of the staff, and we get a lot, too.
-- phoebe, speaking for herself only
p.s. the Board is not involved in setting anyone's compensation, except Sue's; but I don't think these principles are controversial.
pp.s. if you want to feel outraged about capitalism, please go see the movie "Inside Job"! The scale of how horrifically wall street behaves will both make you apoplectic (as it did me) and will perhaps put everything else in perspective.
ppp.s. in the U.S., typically speaking, employees who work for government (state or federal) generally have their salaries disclosed since they are paid for with public (taxpayer) money; for instance, my own salary is public because I work for a public university. Employees of private businesses and non-profits generally have confidential salaries and have the expectation of confidentiality: it is actually considered quite rude and inappropriate to discuss or disclose how much someone makes, and goes against standard HR practice to disclose such information. The exception is for the officers of public companies (i.e. those with shareholders), and the officers of nonprofits who must file 990s.
On 21/11/2010 02:00, Noein wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 20/11/2010 09:37, Craig Franklin wrote:
I don't know any of these people personally, but $128k a year for a legal expert of Mike Godwin's stature and experience sounds like a bargain, not an unreasonable expense. Given that WMF needs competent legal representation, and given that the WMF is not exactly flush with cash, we should be thanking Mike for essentially taking a pay cut compared to what he could probably have made in the for-profit sector.
Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (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).
Thank you everybody for explaining your views. Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who are just good enough to give their money and effort.
I think you've just given a description of Libertarianism.
Its interesting though that a discussion on Corporate Social Responsibility so quickly devolved into what people get paid.
"Corporate Social Responsibility" is basically another euphemism for "Not stinking up the place". That may involve not using hardwood furnishing in the office, not making unnecessary trips around the world, not providing lavish hospitality, AND it can also mean making sure that children that come into contact with the organisation (at whatever level) are protected. That outsiders and other organisations aren't maligned by the activities that the organisation facilitates etc.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org