Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
A couple quick points: * Average rent for an apartment in San Francisco is $2,282/month. If you exclude the neighborhoods where you're likely to get shot, it's more like $2500-$3000. * I believe Salary and other compensation includes payment to contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't counted as employees). If you factor those in you may understand why I spend over 50% of my paycheck on rent, commute 45 minutes to work, drive a car from 1973, and eat microwave burritos. Either that or my western, capitalist, materialist and proprietary cultural bias has gone seriously haywire :) Ryan Kaldari On 11/20/10 4:16 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote: The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf The section on salaries begins on Page 7. Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions: Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. 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. Top law school graduates in the United States are offered salaries in that range for their first job. It is a modest salary for highly experienced counsel as are the other salaries disclosed. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, rkald...@wikimedia.org writes: * I believe Salary and other compensation includes payment to contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't counted as employees). Why so many, and contractors generally make much more than employees. Why not get rid of some of those and hire more employees? I know of a lot of people looking for work. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 11/22/2010 1:08 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/22/2010 11:31:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, wikipe...@frontier.com writes: On 11/22/2010 10:47 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, rkald...@wikimedia.org writes: * I believe Salary and other compensation includes payment to contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't counted as employees). Why so many, and contractors generally make much more than employees. Why not get rid of some of those and hire more employees? I know of a lot of people looking for work. And I know of some positions they're welcome to apply for if they have suitable qualifications: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings Aside from that, staffing decisions are not simply something that gets flipped around at will. In some cases, Wikimedia contractors have that status because it would be prohibitively difficult to treat them as employees (some staff located abroad, for example). Others are hired for specific time-limited projects which it makes more sense to do on a contract basis (Eugene Eric Kim for the strategy project, for instance). Also, the notion that contractors generally make much more than employees seems to ignore the fact that this bucket is labeled Salary *and other compensation* (meaning things such as health or retirement benefits). How does 20-30 contractors equate to the 10 open positions listed? It seems short to me. I didn't suggest that any of the openings are being used to replace contractors, that was just a response to the comment that you know a lot of people who might be interested in such openings. I don't see what logic there is in stating that having an employee abroad is prohibitively difficult but it's not so if they are a contractor. That makes no sense to me. Many countries tie aspects of their social safety net into employer-employee relationships through various regulations, taxation, and reporting obligations. These systems often differ dramatically between jurisdictions, making it quite burdensome to comply with more than one at a time. Not to mention that a jurisdiction may not accept such a relationship unless both parties are based there, meaning that the foundation would have to set up local subsidiaries in order to make non-US contractors employees. (Incidentally, I apologize to all for my earlier reference to staff working abroad without giving geographic context or simply using better terminology.) At which point, it doesn't really make sense to duplicate the overhead already being assumed by the chapters, some of which have begun hiring staff themselves. Shifting people to chapter employment might address some cases, but it's still a different situation from working directly for the Wikimedia Foundation. If WMF is truly adding wages paid to contractors into the Salary and other compensation bucket I don't think this is G.A.A.P. Wages paid to contractors should not be treated the same as salary paid to employees for the purpose of annual reports like this. That is, they should not be lumped together in this sort of bucket. I thought your complaint was that contractors are being paid too much, not that they are being counted in the wrong place. They aren't - as a member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for expenses. Ryan may have been in error about whether payments to contractors were included in the figure quoted (he doesn't work in accounting). That doesn't change the point that the and other compensation includes rather significant expenses beyond simply base salary, which is why hiring contractors involves a different compensation structure. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
In a message dated 11/22/2010 2:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, wikipe...@frontier.com writes: They aren't - as a member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for expenses. So auditing is now about confidence ? Something seems wrong with an audit committee who is trusting who they are auditing. Isn't the very point of auditing, to not have trust and blind faith? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/22/2010 2:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, wikipe...@frontier.com writes: They aren't - as a member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for expenses. So auditing is now about confidence ? Something seems wrong with an audit committee who is trusting who they are auditing. Isn't the very point of auditing, to not have trust and blind faith? I think you misunderstood his point, even though it did not seem unclear. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have confidence in their own work, which in this case is the work of the audit committee to determine the completeness, accuracy and legal sufficiency of financial reporting. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
I started this thread to discuss Wikimedia's CSR. Unfortunately, people are now debating salaries for the major part of this thread... ~Abbas. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:53:32 -0500 From: nawr...@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/22/2010 2:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, wikipe...@frontier.com writes: They aren't - as a member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for expenses. So auditing is now about confidence ? Something seems wrong with an audit committee who is trusting who they are auditing. Isn't the very point of auditing, to not have trust and blind faith? I think you misunderstood his point, even though it did not seem unclear. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to have confidence in their own work, which in this case is the work of the audit committee to determine the completeness, accuracy and legal sufficiency of financial reporting. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: You think that nobody amidst the hundred of thousands of motivated volunteers would have the skills while accepting to work for a decent and humble salary. I'd like to prove you wrong, if there were a authentic will from the Foundation to have a try. As someone who has dealings with the legal issues thrown up by wikipedia (mostly the copyright stuff) I can state we have very few if any lawyers with expertise in the relevant areas and any we do have are fairly happily employed elsewhere. The amount the foundation pays for legal services is one area where it's doing fairly well. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 21 November 2010 04:21, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. I'm afraid I have little respect for the ideas you're expressing here because they seem silly, and more silly the more you explain of them. I could of course be wrong, but you're not helping your ideas any yourself. The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. Because your ideas don't match how accepted practice of running a viable charity works. You may consider the accepted practice appalling, but doing things in an accepted manner is necessary for a charity to be allowed to exist and operate in the real world. Wikimedia is already weird compared to other charities - we've had an absolute arse of a time with things like our Guidestar rating, because they don't work so well for charities with a volunteer:staff ratio on the order of 10,000:1. What you're advocating is a whole new system of running a charity. This is an excellent idea. But you haven't made any convincing case why Wikimedia should be the test case. What is your familiarity with the operation of charities in general? The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. This is a statement that requires a citation. I believe it is flatly incorrect and your perceptions are well out of sync with the various communities. So please detail the evidence you have otherwise for us. (I see one other person has already asked for your sources for this assertion.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
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 nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Noein prono...@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-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. Top law school graduates in the United States are offered salaries in that range for their first job. It is a modest salary for highly experienced counsel as are the other salaries disclosed. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
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. I live in US and I work in public accounting. As part of my work I have to look through numerous payroll schedules for various companies. WMF salaries are very reasonable. They do not simply profit from volunteer work. They work hard and do an amazing job. They deserve every penny they get. If you think about it: if they chose to go into for-profit fields, they would be getting substantially larger paychecks. But they decided to forgo that personal benefit. So they are not profiting, they in fact sacrificing and I am extremely greatful. Renata ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6H0lAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKBUH/iR6I4xqIJ6fgwrXDOmq7hk9 AoW76HIRk8qQC0UdWzUvVxdIiUXr6vDK50DkSFUJhS7kUtC5vuOxcEhzcNV1n4v8 tqhEAxxXxnwzZYYcGSdz5QrFZnJZe4EmmvUImxje26ngaoyPxki+AKI3rf9PR361 IizoUZDM/06Q9lfyE9TmaRhZ33g9wujLisIVQ7q+6oMpR2tmNzEXmM0IW/h0pDxY FhmGy2kfJMarWfjataltegvSDuTKO/55ziMUuho/9z9F/JHfprPN7juc/zwVr4lz m0Qmaa+eL4+bu9FsIMibrhuDpuAVJAV/fRzpqvTXB6GBN3FOAZKz0UAkBk+RBFA= =9oFU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine. You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote: On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine. You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been. I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. - From there I see three paths: - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage in higher ethics. - - alert the community Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6J4+AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LU3kH+wQgX5M44Hi6m9GTr/sJpC2G pPSvxQe3b/P+K5zunFU0G9CIs47F3xLPYvQ5vhkSZVOVUvKPvuOr5WGME8rck4VA e8CjAIQ+HQr4YY82DeiNuYA/19e7zRqKLS4PS9ham6z1opHVPy5rzA8yqbo0EMU6 FtjHNvJEGsM1HQ6Eq9lRAm5bJBC50tx7VxPtA1DjFam1Fv2DY78XB3j6WcFzsc4t WYHSzu5KgevkQs5LijZCtCeetkpaCwdCalwvRlPln8hD1yZVay/IWnCI+x7KxM9K CItpWox5/ZkOiNdbzK4qxSJOCdSu6fuagx7OuGejZLnn19u9U5AFw+Ml2VtzATE= =Nny+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@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=somasrchType=AminAsk=maxAsk=bedrooms= 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. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
Noein, you keep saying that the community does or does not believe a certain way. To my knowledge there have been no studies of socioeconomic perspectives and policies of community members to support your argument. If there are and I'm mistaken, I'd love to know as that would be very interesting information. Dan Sent from my iPad On Nov 20, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote: On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine. You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been. I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. - From there I see three paths: - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage in higher ethics. - - alert the community Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6J4+AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LU3kH+wQgX5M44Hi6m9GTr/sJpC2G pPSvxQe3b/P+K5zunFU0G9CIs47F3xLPYvQ5vhkSZVOVUvKPvuOr5WGME8rck4VA e8CjAIQ+HQr4YY82DeiNuYA/19e7zRqKLS4PS9ham6z1opHVPy5rzA8yqbo0EMU6 FtjHNvJEGsM1HQ6Eq9lRAm5bJBC50tx7VxPtA1DjFam1Fv2DY78XB3j6WcFzsc4t WYHSzu5KgevkQs5LijZCtCeetkpaCwdCalwvRlPln8hD1yZVay/IWnCI+x7KxM9K CItpWox5/ZkOiNdbzK4qxSJOCdSu6fuagx7OuGejZLnn19u9U5AFw+Ml2VtzATE= =Nny+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote: On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine. You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been. I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. - From there I see three paths: - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage in higher ethics. - - alert the community Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening. Please tell us exactly what your philosophy is and what we should do if we chose to follow it. What would change? If you think a constitution or charter is needed what would that contain? Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. Yes, but it would be good if we would have Social Contract, like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? ~Abbas. Absolutely, but our main area of effort is disseminating cheap easily accessible knowledge on a global basis. What else do you have in mind? Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. - d. From the article, business would monitor and ensure its support to law, ethical standards, and international norms Later down, there is a section: Crises and their consequences Often it takes a crisis to precipitate attention to CSR. That is nicely illustrated by how the Siegenthaler libel resulted in our development of the Biographies of living persons policy. This is a recurrent pattern: a scandal or row of some sort results in us developing policies and practices which avoid or ameliorate the problem. But we don't need to wait for crises; we can proactively address social, environmental, and responsibility issues before they arise. Any suggestions? Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. Yes, but it would be good if we would have Social Contract, like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize? Citizendium created a charter, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter We could do the same, but it would be an exercise in affirming policies we have already adopted either by us or the wiki movement in general. (Some of which Citizendium rejects in the name of control by academic authority). Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. Yes, but it would be good if we would have Social Contract, like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize? I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution. [1] As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no confidential secret about where it ends, and how much, and why. I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts. [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5uyDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAHMH+gMJJzFG4+hyGhuzfTw1bLYz FW9NZiERaVArsMC6YA27ps0AK/ubX2/+qMGT/E11wlMX2ptBul82QQywZmQp+qSj fQ7+rbd5j4h1FAN/mYId2IlJ7g8JFwZ2jAD7UZyKfCIqKHWqBZQC8DiQ2W6DbTs2 iGGA8NDhlrUCO1YE8N/lz5cmGJ2mKGE/EcYwEvmQ+lsrXX99OsqHpEjx2a3VVRuq C4uM9XvrQWUb++h7nmO2/cTLxqJ1TdTiooEXIvzEHeEhjEUjbxBP3syJYaz6QFn6 ENYzV5aqhGVivB+u+zXq4mAFGYj1vaq0UAep5bInXdOKkL9kUbPGdEMQnp7Y/cs= =6q+Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we wont talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance peoples online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution. [1] As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no confidential secret about where it ends, and how much, and why. I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts. [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Noein wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. Yes, but it would be good if we would have Social Contract, like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize? I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution. [1] As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no confidential secret about where it ends, and how much, and why. I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts. [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5uyDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAHMH+gMJJzFG4+hyGhuzfTw1bLYz FW9NZiERaVArsMC6YA27ps0AK/ubX2/+qMGT/E11wlMX2ptBul82QQywZmQp+qSj fQ7+rbd5j4h1FAN/mYId2IlJ7g8JFwZ2jAD7UZyKfCIqKHWqBZQC8DiQ2W6DbTs2 iGGA8NDhlrUCO1YE8N/lz5cmGJ2mKGE/EcYwEvmQ+lsrXX99OsqHpEjx2a3VVRuq C4uM9XvrQWUb++h7nmO2/cTLxqJ1TdTiooEXIvzEHeEhjEUjbxBP3syJYaz6QFn6 ENYzV5aqhGVivB+u+zXq4mAFGYj1vaq0UAep5bInXdOKkL9kUbPGdEMQnp7Y/cs= =6q+Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Just a few personal musings -- Noein, personally, I would think that a duty of transparency about money and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all. You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to hide facts. Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? Those are facts as well. How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article? Corporate Social Responsibility applies just as much to transparency as it does to protecting the privacy of its employees. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 18:48, Fred Bauder wrote: I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. By I suspect do you mean that you are speculating? I think we should stick to facts, since speculations about confidential deals could quickly lead to unwanted controversies. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. But the Foundation's money and resources are not, are they? Isn't the WMF linked to the WM community as if each editor was a moral shareholder, with a moral right to know, a moral right to have a say and a moral right to decide? Sorry if my question seems naive, but shouldn't it be that way? We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. Though I understand your reasoning which is a valid one, I'd like to pinpoint that it doesn't flow in the same direction than the volunteer spirit which has been the main engine of the wikimedian projects. Payed persons should be the exception because we couldn't find a volunteer to do it as well. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that orienting the Foundation model towards money-based jobs, more paid jobs, better paid jobs and more fundraising would shift the current universal goals of WM towards monetary and possibly less universal concerns. It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. I didn't suggest trashing anyone, so I don't know where this comes from. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism. I'm sorry that you read my words as bad-willed criticism. All my good wishes go to Mike Godwin, to the Foundation and to the WM mission. I thank everybody, Mike included, for all the good work they've done and will keep doing. My inquiry is not about a person or another, though. It's about the way things are done. I want to learn, understand and be informed. I'd just like to know if some extra money or reward were given (or promised), in this current case to Mike Godwin. It's healthy to know what the Foundation is doing with our donations and volunteering efforts, because it creates trust. The phrasing of Sue Gardner about the severance [1] agreement were vague and left doubts about what it may be. [1]: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wogAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L6VsH/3dw7L8dzQ7InxfFSAVmR485 zg5tp+wkg5oXGQlqEp8W+oR/mOrrCNoq+sHvHMkiwZ6NPkPDGGAR1C0vDugFmNca M3RfjVhOMY8iyVGKLAfkzH8ITOhbwx17OWuFhjFwwGQjjm6pNHkqN7E64TgAGgmz ghCslW61+mAhO6b4tjdhGV/jv0DvWnGZkaENjXmwB6YQRDXt0/UFlrL9AI/W/WcJ QDE7ivInpaE3+hMh7Cbf8j1PKvEk+sJgSKFKQ++vZBaLBqjmnfigNaFO0ilZ82LW tXlVJWDob23BoyjUpDspZlv6ldEuuNjOFypPdgldFT5TQ6JjzRAcVIwVSFohLzk= =IM5o -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 19:22, Dan Rosenthal wrote: Noein, personally, I would think that a duty of transparency about money and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all. It could be that we come from different horizons of thinking. For me it is natural that any non-profit organization, which owes its existence to the community it represents, should inform transparently what it is doing with the resources it is centralizing. For you it seems natural that people in charge have their private secrets about their managing of the public assets. Apparently we don't put the line between the right for privacy and the duty of transparency at the same level. I am naturally more demanding about a Foundation in charge of 80 000 volunteers. Is this attitude unfounded? You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to hide facts. Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? I think only pertinent facts about the WM mission, and the way WMF handles the mission, should be demanded. We're clearly not talking about a personal fact here, but about a Foundation fact. As for the medical records: people should be fit to do their jobs, so if there were a serious doubt about it, the question about disclosing the health state should legitimately arise. How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article? I think the transparency must be enough to generate trust. Once again, if serious doubts were arising about the past of a person, they should be cleared not by censorship nor denial but by openness, honesty and sincerity. I admit I may be too naive. But I'd like to be refuted by solid arguments, though. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wqiAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LBnUIAOB7A53tCNiZv7SwSYlAkMR5 +AjYdbuSJG7OTy0emHCO3injYhsxm4TmGnbVfHeqGA0u6886VfmVXINNEWq1gx1G rFnH5vRtFYrd/jDR80E0TV+J9g8MTU+fmnbQreLXeHyhl8DBG7tDKkS3q9TkqRV6 f2s+bB0q6pN2FbdOFvK05/coh0MA3EbQ3BT41bkIHLitgngghOID7w53DYMxH3VG q2tO8raZUBg7A2evIlO2fYsJfmKnVUt4xCc4qFBCY7pZ6SF7Sgp5I7t9HSgXvaaW LcmbjOlBjZbtCGH5LBAaoxkiGNiKF3ugBfpJ8B2K3j3wvtxA9FsbEim+GM+ZZxk= =lrMn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
I don't think many people would want to work for the Foundation if their salary, severance, raises, etc were regularly published to the outside world. Maybe this is only true in the US, but employee salaries are generally considered to be private information. Asking people to give up basic expectations of privacy in order to work at the WMF would likely scare away most potential employees, especially since WMF employees work at below market rates. Ryan Kaldari On 11/19/10 3:37 PM, Noein wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 18:48, Fred Bauder wrote: I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. By I suspect do you mean that you are speculating? I think we should stick to facts, since speculations about confidential deals could quickly lead to unwanted controversies. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. But the Foundation's money and resources are not, are they? Isn't the WMF linked to the WM community as if each editor was a moral shareholder, with a moral right to know, a moral right to have a say and a moral right to decide? Sorry if my question seems naive, but shouldn't it be that way? We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. Though I understand your reasoning which is a valid one, I'd like to pinpoint that it doesn't flow in the same direction than the volunteer spirit which has been the main engine of the wikimedian projects. Payed persons should be the exception because we couldn't find a volunteer to do it as well. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that orienting the Foundation model towards money-based jobs, more paid jobs, better paid jobs and more fundraising would shift the current universal goals of WM towards monetary and possibly less universal concerns. It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. I didn't suggest trashing anyone, so I don't know where this comes from. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism. I'm sorry that you read my words as bad-willed criticism. All my good wishes go to Mike Godwin, to the Foundation and to the WM mission. I thank everybody, Mike included, for all the good work they've done and will keep doing. My inquiry is not about a person or another, though. It's about the way things are done. I want to learn, understand and be informed. I'd just like to know if some extra money or reward were given (or promised), in this current case to Mike Godwin. It's healthy to know what the Foundation is doing with our donations and volunteering efforts, because it creates trust. The phrasing of Sue Gardner about the severance [1] agreement were vague and left doubts about what it may be. [1]: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wogAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L6VsH/3dw7L8dzQ7InxfFSAVmR485 zg5tp+wkg5oXGQlqEp8W+oR/mOrrCNoq+sHvHMkiwZ6NPkPDGGAR1C0vDugFmNca M3RfjVhOMY8iyVGKLAfkzH8ITOhbwx17OWuFhjFwwGQjjm6pNHkqN7E64TgAGgmz ghCslW61+mAhO6b4tjdhGV/jv0DvWnGZkaENjXmwB6YQRDXt0/UFlrL9AI/W/WcJ QDE7ivInpaE3+hMh7Cbf8j1PKvEk+sJgSKFKQ++vZBaLBqjmnfigNaFO0ilZ82LW tXlVJWDob23BoyjUpDspZlv6ldEuuNjOFypPdgldFT5TQ6JjzRAcVIwVSFohLzk= =IM5o -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Several posts about disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees past and present of the WMF Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c) filing that the WMF has published. The WMF met the legislated requirements for reporting of salaries of certain individuals as well as the overall payroll. I'm not personally going to go looking for that document, but it's on the WMF website and I'm pretty sure someone reading this can provide you with a direct link. I don't recall who was on that list, other than Sue Gardner. I'm also not going to guess what the reporting requirements are for the US government without the documents in front of me, but I'll note that other jurisdictions require either disclosure of the individual salaries of X number of the highest paid employees or, in some cases, of each employee earning over Y amount. I've seen a fair number of these sorts of fiduciary declarations made under various local laws for non-profits and charities, and none of them require the public disclosure of each individual employee's salary. I hope you will agree that the reporting made under the applicable government legislation and regulation should probably be the place where the personal privacy/public information line should be drawn, because it is consistent across the entire non-profit sector. So...could someone please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
Salaries and wages accounted for 3.5 million in the last fiscal year http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/cc/FINAL_09_10From_KPMG.p df ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, swatjes...@gmail.com writes: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
On 19 November 2010 19:24, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, swatjes...@gmail.com writes: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l 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. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM51wyAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L8dAIAK7JEXcJVUqcj1AVWLObO43k HHhwzrllc+xZv1o5pL5Ts7Hq82usVcELFUWfbrfQLz0odoPPK8RJ4ngjLc34xuka QDy1lW2XgpEfE7oaFMpJBla3vCVuZF/GI/rUNLFCFjJeiaE1Mb+sR0xrFLOGRzH9 RVZ22LZy3oCQEMxWC5l2YpcEVl1Eb9Xa4K3mfrUec0GHqr9QgN0M6XK72Bm1Iiy6 UMbH1H/XQnpMfdZGbS/qOb+MPVmB5vbT/JkqxDBJKV3ZiN5+R1I2Pf1b52nIms7y ynN3P4kyfNgmDwDAOMC3B/JuFzLme41mi48hW+P/aFr0gov9uePXghCoMtBgZg0= =WDg2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
