[Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser

[Thomas Dalton]

On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring
> the best person immediately available, rather than a person good
> enough to do the necessary job.

I don't think that's true, at least not for the past couple of years.
The WMF often takes a long time over recruitment and has been known to
re-list jobs if there were no good applicants.

> 1. keep the job unfilled , and search again and again until there is a
> suitable applicant -- except for a critical replacement, this is
> nearly always possible, & if it is a critical position, there should
> have been a in-house person qualified to back up the position as long
> as necessary. I've known major libraries leaving   key senior
> positions unfilled for 10 years, until a suitable candidate was found.

If you can get by without a position filled for 10 years then clearly
it isn't a necessary position (or the position has been filled and you
just haven't updated that person's job title). You can't have someone
else fill in for a position indefinitely since then they won't be
doing their own job.

> 2. redefine the job so that there are available applicants who can
> fill them. this may require rearranging other positions, including
> asking people at higher levels to take on responsibilities they would
> rather delegate.

The WMF has definitely done that with some of the recent hires to the
community team.

> 3. Increase the financial and non-financial aspects of the position,
> in order to attract a wider range of candidates. This is especially
> necessary to get applications from highly qualified candidates who
> would need to relocate. Some organizations may be too poor to do this,
> or be dealing with controlling outside bodies that limit their
> flexibility, in which case they can do the 4th option, an option which
> often has benefits even for the richest:

Working for Wikipedia is a big non-financial aspect that attracts a
wide range of candidates.

> 4. rely more on the volunteers, even for things one would not normally
> expect a volunteer to do.  Wikipedia has some unusually well-qualified
> volunteers available, as compared with most any other organization.

Things one would not normally expect a volunteer to do, such as
writing encyclopaedia articles, say?

So, in summary, your suggestions are good but they are already being
done and the problem you observe was fixed years ago.