[Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility

[FT2]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Noein <pronoein at 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.pdf
> > >
> > > 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.pdf
> > [2]:
> >
> >
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf
> >
> >
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>