[Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

[Birgitte SB]

----- Original Message ----
> From: SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
><foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 10:03:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

> 
> Why is there a  feeling alienation? Because the Foundation is raising
> millions of dollars  from people who read our articles, but isn't
> spending the money on helping to  increase the quality of the articles,
> or make life easier for the volunteers.  It's all about moving to San
> Francisco (how did that help?), opening new  offices overseas,
> employing new fundraisers, etc. Let me apologize here if  that sounds
> too cynical or unfair. I'm just giving a worm's eye view, which  I
> accept may be uninformed, but it's what things look like from down
> here  in the mud. :)
> 

I think you have to consider the context of the timing of the move to SF before 
declaring the decision as blatantly  unhelpful.  It was before the financial 
meltdown.  Attracting and keeping talent, especially given the stress of having 
the quality their work and even the basic decision to pay someone to their job 
regularly attacked, was a big concern. For historical accuracy think what Danny 
dealt with (or search foundation-l archives if you weren't around) and forget 
anything recent that may or may not be such an attack. I thought Danny was 
absolutely crazy to work at WMF, and I work in a family business where 
task-irrelevant stress and a complete lack of boundaries make corporate jobs 
seem fabulously pampered.  Asking people to relocate to some random place when 
they were probably already worried about whether they will be able to handle 
working under that kind of strain was going to be quite difficult in what was 
it; 4.7% unemployment?  SF has a big internet and tech base. It has always made 
sense to me that WMF would be able to both find likely candidates already in SF 
and attract better candidates to SF where the obvious back-up plans for a  WMF 
job not working out seemed rather palatable to the sort of people WMF would 
want.  Given how the larger world events turned out, those concerns seems less 
relevant.  8.9% unemployment leaves good candidates sitting around just about 
everywhere.  


But seriously it's 2011, can we be stop discussing "the move to SF". Is anyone 
seriously complaining about funds from the 2006 fundraiser? Who should be 
brought to account for SF being a sub-optimal location?  The staff who were not 
yet employed by WMF?  The board which includes more people who where not board 
members when that decision was made than where involved in the decision? What is 
the point of bring this up? 


WMF is located in San Francisco. Not in Boston, London, New York, DC, St. Pete, 
nor in any city that was never even under consideration.  Can we please count 
this point as a given and consider those people who were alienated from WMF back 
in 2007 as below the threshold of relevance at this point in time.

Birgitte SB