----- Original Message ----
> From: SlimVirgin <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
><[email protected]>
> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
