Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Hi all, Considering that at this point it is James vs. the world, and has been for quite some time ... have we flogged this dead horse enough yet? [1] --Ed [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HORSEMEAT On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:00 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Morton wrote: If you know nothing about surveys or statistics it is probably a good idea not to describe a properly calculated metric (yes, I sat down and did the math) as absurd I stand by my statement that trying to pin down donor opinion on whether they approve of meeting or exceeding market pay to a 1% margin of error with a 99% confidence interval is completely unnecessary. If a survey with a few hundred respondents turns out to be ambiguous, additional donors could be surveyed later. I have been trying to discuss this with Tom off-list. Pine wrote: I'm a little confounded as to why you're still looking to Glassdoor as your primary source of information on employee satisfaction after Gayle indicated that she has much more comprehensive data on this subject from the employee survey Please have a look at the slides from that survey at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5m5AHoGnot=60m -- Particular questions I have about the employee engagement survey so far include: (1) Is a survey of 84 respondents which asks age, marital status, ethnicity, gender, department, tenure, and organizational level an anonymous survey, or would nearly all of such responses be personally identifiable? Glassdoor offers much stronger anonymity, (2) In general, were there any questions pertaining to whether employees are satisfied with their pay? I can see none on any of the report slides. I do see questions pertaining to recognition which are repeatedly identified as problem areas. Pay is by far the largest complaint on Glassdoor from both satisfied and unsatisfied employees, but it does not appear to have been measured on the Foundation's survey. At 1:12:30 it is said that the slide deck will be made public. I hope we get to see the list of questions too. (3) The slide at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5m5AHoGnot=65m is astounding. What does it mean that all three of the executive respondents completely agreed with the statements that we treat everyone with dignity and respect and we consistently hire strong talent and recognize strong performers but only 54% and 52% of the twenty-four managers responding agreed, respectively? (4) The top two questions at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5m5AHoGnot=65m45s indicate that those who have been working for the Foundation for more than two years have very profoundly different assessments of both recognition (which, again, seems to be the closest thing to pay that the survey asked about) and the competence of people in key positions compared to newer employees. Do we want to trust employees opinion in proportion to their experience with the organization? (5) At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5m5AHoGnot=68m attracting skilled individuals for hiring is identified as a specific improvement need. How is it being addressed? David Gerard wrote: Anyone in IT knows that there's such a thing as charity scale, where you get paid less because you're working for a nonprofit in exchange for less stress and/or doing actual good in the world. The slide at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB5m5AHoGnot=62m10s indicates that in comparison against 120 corporations and 7 non-profits who have participated in similar surveys over the past seven years, the Foundation scored in the 76th percentile on this survey. I am not sure that reflects very well, given the state of the economy over that time period. I do believe paying people more does lower their stress and attract and retain more talent. Although there is apparently no shortage of opinion to the contrary, I have yet to see any data in agreement with those opinions. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Pine wrote: ... I think Erik addressed your question about pay in a way that is very reasonable and I would ask you to re-read his comments Thank you very much for asking me to do this. I overlooked the video mentioned in Erik's comments and I see now that it may be the root of the problems with neglecting pay. Erik Moeller wrote: ... But the main thing, to keep people motivated, in my experience is not money This video summarizing some of the related research is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc That video reports on two studies that found higher incentives led to worse performance, and claims that, this has been replicated over and over and over again. That is very misleading at best. The following peer reviewed sources (the first of which are WP:SECONDARY literature reviews) all indicate that while a few such studies appeared in some popular press books, the vast bulk of the scientific research does not agree with those isolated conclusions. In fact, higher pay is almost always found to be a stronger motivator except in those few anomalous studies highlighted in that video: Fang, M.; Gerhart, B. (2011) Does pay for performance diminish intrinsic interest? International Journal of Human Resource Management: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09585192.2011.561227 Reitman, D. (1998) The real and imagined harmful effects of rewards: implications for clinical practice Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 29(2):101-13 PMID 9762587: http://carmine.se.edu/cvonbergen/The_real_and_imagined_harmful%20effects%20of%20rewards.pdf (Note this is a WP:MEDRS secondary source.) Cameron, J.; Pierce, W.D. (1994) Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis Review of Educational Research 64(3):363-423: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/64/3/363.short (WP:SECONDARY meta-analysis of 96 experimental studies.) Eisenberger, R. et al. (1999) Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(5):1026-40: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuyid=1999-01257-010 Fiorillo, D. (2011) Do monetary rewards crowd out intrinsic motivations of volunteers? Some empirical evidence for Italian volunteers Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics Economics 82(2):139-65: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1467-8292.2011.00434.x/abstract Thompson, G.D., et al. (2010) Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews? Results of a Natural Experiment Economic Journal 76(3):678-92: http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/abs/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678 Pine wrote: ... I suggest that the IRC meeting may be a better forum than this mailing list for you to ask further questions. I promised Gayle when she agreed to hold an office hour that I would submit my questions weeks in advance so that there would be no surprises, and I have done so. I don't want to reiterate any of them until then, but if people continue to post what I believe are mathematical or similar mistakes, I will certainly address those. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Compromise?
James, Is there evidence that WMF has a worrisome talent retention problem? Gayle seems to think that the answer is generally no. If there is evidence to the contrary that has more weight than anecdotal Glassdoor reviews, I would be interested in seeing that evidence. I would distinguish between motivation and performance. Highly motivated people may perform poorly and/or perform in ways that are inconsistent with the organization's interests. Consider the cases of financial professionals who were so highly motivated that they were willing to risk criminal prosecutions and serious harm or outright demise of their organizations. I get emails every week from the SEC and almost all of them seem to include announcements of legal actions brought by the SEC against people who were highly motivated and made decisions that are questionable at best. Also consider the case of someone who may be highly financially motivated to get a degree in engineering but lacks the math skills to do so. Very highly motivated people may be unable to achieve their performance objectives or may take significant, potentially illegal and unethical risks to achieve those objectives. Looking mainly at the abstracts, I think the final study that you linked is the most relevant of the set to the discussion here. In that case a financial incentive was added in addition to whatever other incentives already existed for the reviewers to complete their work. But I would argue that doing the same work faster is more analogous to the rule-based work, rather than the creative work, discussed in the video that Erik linked. I am not opposed to WMF offering performance bonuses - money, recognition, PTO, greater discretion, conferences, training, desirable assignments - but in general I think you seem to be overstating the nature of WMF's issues with retaining personnel. Also, I would distinguish between incentives to perform and incentives to remain with the organization. On the accountability side, I do think that there's room for improvement, and the employee survey data seem to agree with that. I support the consideration of making personnel changes if important targets are not met or issues do not receive adequate responses. (I am currently concerned about the Board, as I have mentioned elsewhere). But that's a different issue than the alleged talent retention problem for paid staff. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Hoi, In my country health care insurance is compulsory. If anything this means that everyone can see a doctor and believe it or not, investment in health care is beneficial to the wealth of a nation. I am appalled that people consider health care something that is best left to the individual. It means that everybody has to pay the same amount irrespective if they can afford it. Please study the subject and YES, the WMF is in the USA however having a health care policy for its employees is a best practice if you care for your employees. Thanks, GerardM On 5 January 2013 11:11, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On Saturday, January 5, 2013, James Salsman wrote: Michael Snow wrote: ... You think that having people mortgage their future and simply giving them more cash, which they don't ultimately enjoy other than to pay loans at distressed interest rates, is a greater benefit to them than providing the best insurance coverage we can offer? No, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. If a typical working age American's immediate family suffers catastrophic medical expenses, it's most likely going to be one of their parents, who aren't covered by the Foundation's or any other employer's plan. Medicare only pays for 60 days of hospitalization, with copayments totaling about $30,000 for the following 60 days, and then it stops paying altogether. (See e.g. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7768.pdf ) In any case, most Americans who enter bankruptcy because of medical expenses have on average about $45,000 of debt, which amounts to 2.2 years of the difference between the mean salary of Wikimedia and Mozilla Foundation junior software engineers. It's not like the difference between being able to save a loved one from bankruptcy and keeping them in the hospital when they need it would displace existing health insurance or even make a serious dent in retirement savings. This is a bad idea because it puts the responsibility of saving/investing that money on the employee. Also without healthcare insurance simple everyday costs can be astronomical (prescriptions etc.). So all that would happen is those employees would have to organise their own healthcare, and would probably not get as good a deal as the foundation can arrange. And that brings up another important point: What kind of talent does the WMF forgo by not being able to offer employees competitive retirement savings? I suggest that there are very good reasons that all the additional Glassdoor reviews in the past week didn't really move the needle in satisfaction or recommendation scores. If anything the Foundation should be exceeding market rate to make up for its inability to provide equity participation plans for retirement savings which commercial firms can offer. As a charity the foundation has a responsibility to balance hiring the best talent with spending too frivolously. So the foundation should NOT throw money at staff without showing that paying extra would bring the charity significant increases in value. I know programmers on a par with my talent who are perfectly content earning significantly less than I do. So this is not a case of the best costs the most. Richard Symonds wrote: I would object to the precedent being set that donors from around the world, however old or young, are able to directly decide the salaries of staff at the WMF I am not suggesting allowing donors to set salary levels, only to express their opinions as to whether they would object to the Foundation meeting market labor pay, or exceeding it to compensate for the inability to offer equity participation. Since the only objections raised against competitive pay have been that it would be an irresponsible use of donor's money, why not find out from the donor's whether they actually share that view? The worst that could happen would be that we would find that donors agree with the status quo. I would also have an issue with donors being bombarded with emails... A representative sample of 384 donors is sufficient to establish the answer with 95% confidence. I am not suggesting asking all however many million there have been. I call this number the magic 384, it's a common rookie mistake when designing surveys for a million people. With a sample size of 384 you do get 95% confidence, with a confidence interval of 5%. So the data is fairly meaningless (if 49% of your respondents say X then that could represent anything from 44 to 54 percent of the population). You need around 12000 for any solid degree of confidence. And I believe we have a lot more than a million donors across a wide variety of cultures. Please don't just throw out numbers like this unless you know what you are taking about. Tom we should be saving our 'communication points' for something more important.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
If you know nothing about surveys or statistics it is probably a good idea not to describe a properly calculated metric (yes, I sat down and did the math) as absurd, and then claim efficacy of your own informal survey. Just sayin. Incidentally I am not sure your point about the glassdoor reviews really rebuts mine re the value of paying more money. If we pay more to the current staff will they be a lot more productive (hint; this doesn't often equate in the way you'd expect) or wil lthose hard problems become easier? And does increased wage offerings attract more competent staff? Again, this does not always work out as you expect. James, please don't take this the wrong way but all of your contribution so far seems to be Google educated, without any practical experience to guide your words. I'm sorry if that is not the case, but you do appear to be rolling out a lot of the rookie viewpoints on many different fronts. Tom On Saturday, January 5, 2013, James Salsman wrote: Again, I am not suggesting canceling anyone's health insurance or replacing it with increased salary. I am only trying to say that in the case of when a parent or sibling faces catastrophic medical expenses in the U.S., just over two years of the difference between typical junior software engineer pay at the Wikimedia and Mozilla foundations is the same amount that the average American who enters bankruptcy because of medical expenses has in debt. On 5 January 2013 11:11, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comjavascript:; wrote: So the foundation should NOT throw money at staff without showing that paying extra would bring the charity significant increases in value. If the nine reviews added to http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wikimedia-Foundation-Reviews-E38331.htm over the past two weeks does not establish that, then I can't imagine anything will. A representative sample of 384 donors is sufficient to establish the answer with 95% confidence. I am not suggesting asking all however many million there have been. I call this number the magic 384, it's a common rookie mistake when designing surveys for a million people. With a sample size of 384 you do get 95% confidence, with a confidence interval of 5%. So the data is fairly meaningless (if 49% of your respondents say X then that could represent anything from 44 to 54 percent of the population). If my preliminary informal survey of a much smaller number of donors is representative, then the results will be much closer to 100% agreeing that the Foundation should meet or exceed market pay than 50%. You need around 12000 for any solid degree of confidence. And I believe we have a lot more than a million donors across a wide variety of cultures. That is absurdly excessive. There has never been a Foundation donor survey of more than 3,760 donors, and that number was only chosen because of a requirement to measure fine grained demographics in categories for which few respondents were expected. 384 is plenty to resolve a yes/no or below/meet/exceed question at the 95% confidence level unless anyone has any actual evidence that the result is likely to be close. I am convinced that if asked, donors would think it is irresponsible to pay so little that Oracle employees are more satisfied. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
James, I'm a little confounded as to why you're still looking to Glassdoor as your primary source of information on employee satisfaction after Gayle indicated that she has much more comprehensive data on this subject from the employee survey. Also, I will stand up and say that I, for one, am not a fan of WMF trying to match market pay in the SF area. I am interested WMF in retaining qualified and motivated employees, and I am interested in employee job satisfaction which includes pay as only one of many factors. If pay was a widespread problem then I'm sure Gayle and Eric would be seeing that. I expect that, as with many nonprofits, the mission of the nonprofit and the satisfaction of working on the mission with like-minded people will compensate for the lower monetary compensation. It seems to me that your concerns about HR issues have been generally well addressed by Eric and Gayle. Gayle has also agreed to do an IRC office hour, which would be a good opportunity for you to ask more questions if you're still not clear on the applicability of Glassdoor vs. the applicability of the employee survey data. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 5 January 2013 19:32, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote: Also, I will stand up and say that I, for one, am not a fan of WMF trying to match market pay in the SF area. I am interested WMF in retaining qualified and motivated employees, and I am interested in employee job satisfaction which includes pay as only one of many factors. If pay was a widespread problem then I'm sure Gayle and Eric would be seeing that. I expect that, as with many nonprofits, the mission of the nonprofit and the satisfaction of working on the mission with like-minded people will compensate for the lower monetary compensation. Anyone in IT knows that there's such a thing as charity scale, where you get paid less because you're working for a nonprofit in exchange for less stress and/or doing actual good in the world.` - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Jan 5, 2013 7:51 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone in IT knows that there's such a thing as charity scale, where you get paid less because you're working for a nonprofit in exchange for less stress and/or doing actual good in the world.` Less stress? Wikipedia? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Sorry to top post - but, I'm just replying to the thread in general. One of my biggest frustrations with this thread is that it seems to focus on technical staff. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non profit. There is an entire department of people who do programming in grants/education/and dare I say outreach (or whatever). Then there are the HR people, etc. While I am wrapping up the last month of my fellowship, and I am not a Wikimedia staff member, I do have my master's in museum studies, with a focus on the management of said organizations. The reason I state that? Is because WMF is competitive in regards to what it offers employees in my realm - as a non-profit person (I will most likely work in non profits for the rest of my life unless I own my own business, and that could even be nonprofit). So don't forget - I'm not the only person with a degree that would take me into a world of nonprofitness - Google isn't even on my radar as someone who is bidding for me, nor am I looking at them for work. Let's just say, when I went to school, I knew I'd be working for a mission, and which in the US, many folks go into computer science with the understanding they'll be making a nice amount of money out of school. From my understanding, most technical folks don't go into the field to start using their talents for non profits, it's often a second life, after working in the for profit world. Hell, what I made as a fellow is as competitive to what first year's make working at museums. And I feel I've gotten more dare I say..perks or benefits, working as a fellow at WMF then I would working at pretty much any museum in my area of work (curatorial). (minus benefits like health insurance which contractors/fellows don't get) So for me, and a number of us who work in the nonprofit arena (not the tech person who could be stolen by big tech company arena) - WMF *is* competitive. -Sarah On 1/4/13 10:17 AM, Quim Gil wrote: On 01/03/2013 09:12 AM, Michael Snow wrote: the Wikimedia Foundation provides benefits that meet or exceed those of just about any employer it might be competing with. fwiw until recently I was working in the so-called Silicon Valley for a Scandinavian big tech corp with Scandinavian standards for HR practices and health care coverage. The coverage I get at the WMF for my family and myself is no different (including my fully covered domestic partner aka not-married mother of my children). My salary has been significantly reduced with the change, indeed. But it is definitely more than enough to have a regular middle class life in the Bay Area. And then again we would be comparing the salary I had in such company after 5 years of (hopefully good) work, not the one I had at the beginning. I'm hoping to get some salary increase if/when I can proof good results of my work but I'm not even aiming to reach the same level I got in a for-profit tech corp in Silicon Valley. That would feel wrong, being most of the WMF based on individual donations and being the WMF active in so many countries where so much can be done with the difference between such corporate salary and the one I've got now. PS: speaking entirely for myself although I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment is shared among other WMF employees. -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 4 January 2013 18:17, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: And then again we would be comparing the salary I had in such company after 5 years of (hopefully good) work, not the one I had at the beginning. It would be very unusual for an employer to disregard previous experience when setting a salary just because that experience wasn't with them... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 01/04/2013 10:53 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 4 January 2013 18:17, Quim Gil q...@wikimedia.org wrote: And then again we would be comparing the salary I had in such company after 5 years of (hopefully good) work, not the one I had at the beginning. It would be very unusual for an employer to disregard previous experience when setting a salary just because that experience wasn't with them... Whatever the theoretical arguments are, the moment for any potential employee comes when you receive an offer from the WMF. I accept it and signed because I thought it was competitive and a great next step in my career. If someone leaves the WMF some months after the core reason can't be the salary alone, since that was exactly the most clear and precise data such employee had when joining. imho the discussion about salaries and benefits are more relevant in the context of hiring and its difficulties, rather than employee retention. -- Quim Gil Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 1/4/2013 12:17 PM, James Salsman wrote: Even the best medical plans don't protect medical debtors the way that the ability to finance long term personal debt with greater salary and savings does. Right, and the best approach would be for employees to get no health insurance at all, I'm sure they would rather have the cost of that benefit paid out in salary instead and be left entirely on their own for medical expenses. Seriously, I know the US approach to paying for healthcare has its problems, but that has to be the most bizarre conclusion I've ever seen on the topic. You think that having people mortgage their future and simply giving them more cash, which they don't ultimately enjoy other than to pay loans at distressed interest rates, is a greater benefit to them than providing the best insurance coverage we can offer? Three quarters of U.S. debtors entering bankruptcy for medical reasons have insurance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf Yes, lots of people are underinsured in various ways. The Wikimedia Foundation tries to provide generous health coverage to protect its employees from having to deal with exactly that. --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Does anyone object to the idea of surveying donors to find their opinions on whether the Foundation should pay market rate for labor? I would object to the precedent being set that donors from around the world, however old or young, are able to directly decide the salaries of staff at the WMF. Salary levels should be decided by HR professionals with input from the board. I would also have an issue with donors being bombarded with emails or notices about relatively unimportant things: email fatigue is very easy to trigger, and we should be saving our 'communication points' for something more important. Disclaimer: I'm not a WMF employee, and this wont affect me- but I have worked in HR-related jobs for a few years. I'm also writing as myself, rather than as a staffer at WMUK. On Jan 4, 2013 8:18 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Snow wrote: ... Paying market rate salaries is not what protects employees from being overwhelmed by medical expenses. The type of long-term or catastrophic medical event that generates a situation like this can outstrip even the most generous salary. What's actually relevant is the scope of medical coverage offered, including for dependents. Even the best medical plans don't protect medical debtors the way that the ability to finance long term personal debt with greater salary and savings does. Three quarters of U.S. debtors entering bankruptcy for medical reasons have insurance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf Does anyone object to the idea of surveying donors to find their opinions on whether the Foundation should pay market rate for labor? Nine additional reviews have been added to http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wikimedia-Foundation-Reviews-E38331.htm since Glassdoor was mentioned here last week. Glassdoor verifies email addresses for those who claim to be current employees, and they provide anonymity in the way an internal survey with detailed responses can not. The Foundation's employee satisfaction and recommendation scores there have improved very slightly, but still not enough to exceed any of the other comparable firms and foundations. It is great to hear personally from satisfied employees, but it seems more reasonable to trust reasonably anonymous data rather than anecdotes in this case. Nathan wrote: Does the Foundation have the will to protect volunteer editors from the deleterious effects of income inequality? This is, I think, is the signal of where James is going with this. This is the recurrence of the argument from a few months ago of paying editors, something that I think virtually anyone who has thought about it would oppose. I've never suggested paying editors, but I was hoping that something like the Fellowship program could have been extended to established, long-term contributors living in poverty. There are now Foundation grants available for individuals which will be announced in a few weeks: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Individual_Engagement_Grants When I wrote that, I was trying to suggest that it would be reasonable for the Foundation to undertake an educational action campaign to help people understand the implications of Arthur Okun's 1975 regression mistake described in http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm -- I think it is absolutely correct to describe that as the worst mathematical error in the history of human civilization, which has resulted in more than two billion preventable premature deaths and more than $20 trillion in financial losses since 1975. Moreover, the error underlies essentially all of the left-right economic debates taking place worldwide today. However, since I wrote that, it has become apparent that the IMF itself, at its highest levels, is starting to come to terms with the magnitude and implications of the error and address them directly on the world stage, and the press has picked up on that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/03/an-amazing-mea-culpa-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/ So it's probably best to take a wait-and-see attitude for a month or so before I would continue to recommend such action. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Michael Snow wrote: ... You think that having people mortgage their future and simply giving them more cash, which they don't ultimately enjoy other than to pay loans at distressed interest rates, is a greater benefit to them than providing the best insurance coverage we can offer? No, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. If a typical working age American's immediate family suffers catastrophic medical expenses, it's most likely going to be one of their parents, who aren't covered by the Foundation's or any other employer's plan. Medicare only pays for 60 days of hospitalization, with copayments totaling about $30,000 for the following 60 days, and then it stops paying altogether. (See e.g. http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7768.pdf ) In any case, most Americans who enter bankruptcy because of medical expenses have on average about $45,000 of debt, which amounts to 2.2 years of the difference between the mean salary of Wikimedia and Mozilla Foundation junior software engineers. It's not like the difference between being able to save a loved one from bankruptcy and keeping them in the hospital when they need it would displace existing health insurance or even make a serious dent in retirement savings. And that brings up another important point: What kind of talent does the WMF forgo by not being able to offer employees competitive retirement savings? I suggest that there are very good reasons that all the additional Glassdoor reviews in the past week didn't really move the needle in satisfaction or recommendation scores. If anything the Foundation should be exceeding market rate to make up for its inability to provide equity participation plans for retirement savings which commercial firms can offer. Richard Symonds wrote: I would object to the precedent being set that donors from around the world, however old or young, are able to directly decide the salaries of staff at the WMF I am not suggesting allowing donors to set salary levels, only to express their opinions as to whether they would object to the Foundation meeting market labor pay, or exceeding it to compensate for the inability to offer equity participation. Since the only objections raised against competitive pay have been that it would be an irresponsible use of donor's money, why not find out from the donor's whether they actually share that view? The worst that could happen would be that we would find that donors agree with the status quo. I would also have an issue with donors being bombarded with emails... A representative sample of 384 donors is sufficient to establish the answer with 95% confidence. I am not suggesting asking all however many million there have been. we should be saving our 'communication points' for something more important. What might be more important that we haven't already asked in donor surveys of years past? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 2:54 PM, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. I certainly do, too. I'm happy to volunteer for no pay, so I doubt anyone can possibly question that. However, underpaying for labor in a high demand market is a huge risk to the timely success of Foundation projects. The cons comments on Glassdoor.com from both satisfied and unsatisfied Foundation employees explain several reasons why. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic. Don't forget where the money is coming from. 89% of donors visit Wikipedia several times per week and 40% of them visit at least once a day,[1] but only a third have ever edited.[2] 88% of them have a college degree,[3] and more than three quarters work in skilled professions.[4] Their worldwide median income is about USD $75,000 and more than 5% make over $200,000 per year.[5] Does that sound like the kind of people who would want to risk losing talent because their donations were limited to a fundraising goal set based on the blatantly false assertion that we aren't able to raise enough money to pay market rate? Donors' primary concern for the future, far more than any other concerns across all ages, income and education levels and gender, is that volunteers will lose interest causing Wikipedia to become out of date.[6] Sadly, that is exactly the problem we are having.[7] Of all the strategic goals, the number of active editors is the only one not being met.[8] But the Education Program, the most promising in training editors inside the world's colleges and universities, doesn't even have the staff to make sure that their article talk page templates are correctly dated. Someone seriously asked me in private email whether that means they're simply slacking off. No, it does not. Those templates were corrected by staff if they were added with the wrong date back when the Education Program was much smaller, but its staffing levels has fallen far behind the numbers of articles or students participating in it. The Foundation has shown it has the political will to take action to protect the Legal and Office Actions staff from the considerable overhead that SOPA/PIPA would have caused had it become law. Does the Foundation have the will to protect volunteer editors from the deleterious effects of income inequality? Is there any other political action which would truly or more closely be in the interest of our volunteer editors, about a fifth of whom work in or near poverty to contribute to Foundation projects? Given how popular the SOPA/PIPA action was, do we have any reason to believe than editors and the public would not overwhelmingly support such an action in support of income equality? I intend to find out. ... it would be irresponsible of us to try to keep up with the average Tech company, as James Salsman had suggested. Leslie, the most frequent cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is unanticipated medical expenses. If one of your family members faced such unanticipated expenses, and you realized you could save them from bankruptcy and perhaps even save their life by leaving the Foundation and taking a job at market rate, would that not tend to sway your idealism? Since any of your colleagues could face the same circumstances, is it therefore not irresponsible instead to fail to meet or exceed the local market rate for technical labor? By the way, less than 10% of the volunteer-contributed appeal messaging submissions from the 2010 fundraiser have ever been tested, and those that were form a lognormal distribution suggesting that we could be raising about 2.5 times as much as the best performing banner from December, if the appeal statement in its third sentence were replaced with the best performing result of multivariate testing of those alternate appeal statements. All of the foreign language testing from this and previous years shows that the best performance in English produces the best performance in other languages, usually by about the same margin. Therefore, performing a multivariate test to optimize the banners and then translating the top performing resulting messages would not place any more of a burden on translators than using A/B testing to derive a much more poorly performing local optimum and then translating that. Sincerely, James Salsman [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2010_Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdfpage=8 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:2010_Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdfpage=9 [3]
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 3 January 2013 08:08, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: Does that sound like the kind of people who would want to risk losing talent because their donations were limited to a fundraising goal set based on the blatantly false assertion that we aren't able to raise enough money to pay market rate? You seem to have a misunderstanding of how employers set salaries. Affordability isn't really a factor (you adjust who you hire and how many people you hire based on affordability, but you can't do much about how much you pay them). As with any procurement, you pay the minimum that is necessary to get what you want. A good employer will include a reasonable level of staff morale as part of what they want, of course. It appears that the Foundation is able to attract and retain the staff they need and keep them happy at current salary levels, so paying any more would be a waste of donor's money. They pay less than other employers, but that's because people value working for a good cause so are happy to work for less. If the Foundation failed to take advantage of that, it wouldn't be making the most efficient use of its funds. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 1/3/2013 12:08 AM, James Salsman wrote: Leslie, the most frequent cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is unanticipated medical expenses. If one of your family members faced such unanticipated expenses, and you realized you could save them from bankruptcy and perhaps even save their life by leaving the Foundation and taking a job at market rate, would that not tend to sway your idealism? Since any of your colleagues could face the same circumstances, is it therefore not irresponsible instead to fail to meet or exceed the local market rate for technical labor? James, if you actually understood the dynamics involved here, you would realize that this random general-interest factoid is more or less irrelevant to your agenda. Paying market rate salaries is not what protects employees from being overwhelmed by medical expenses. The type of long-term or catastrophic medical event that generates a situation like this can outstrip even the most generous salary. What's actually relevant is the scope of medical coverage offered, including for dependents. On that score, as reflected in what Matthew shared earlier, my understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation provides benefits that meet or exceed those of just about any employer it might be competing with. If we are actually losing any employees over this specific reason, I would be very interested to hear about such cases privately to see if we need to change our approach, and I'm sure Sue and Garfield would be as well. (We might very well lose employees dealing with personal scenarios of this nature, but I believe it's more likely to be due to the impact of the situation on their time and energy levels. In that case, we have no option but to acknowledge that they have their priorities in the right order.) --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Le 29/12/2012 22:14, Leslie Carr a écrit : On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit : I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee. You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get. Cheers and happy new year! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 29/12/2012 22:14, Leslie Carr a écrit : On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit : I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee. You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get. I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is not saying here is an extremity, I get less - she's saying here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less. In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made. __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Le 02/01/2013 18:42, Oliver Keyes a écrit : On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get. I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is not saying here is an extremity, I get less - she's saying here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less. In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made. I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 02/01/2013 18:42, Oliver Keyes a écrit : On 2 January 2013 19:25, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: You're comparing your standard of living with extreme ways of life, and you reach the conclusion that yours is moderate. However, if you compare with the rest of mankind, you're still getting things that 99% of them don't get. I think that's probably true, but the fact of the matter is that Leslie is not saying here is an extremity, I get less - she's saying here is an extremity that is Standard Operating Procedure at Facebook/Google/Twitter//insertyourorgofchoice, where almost any of us could get a job...I get less. In the context of a conversation comparing WMF benefits with those of similar orgs in the Bay Area that makes total sense as a statement. I would agree that it is better than 99 percent of humanity, but I'm not sure who *dis*agrees with that statement: you appear to be arguing against a position that hasn't been made. I'm proud of people like Leslie who work for less money than other opportunities but for a cause. They stand for their beliefs and their values, I strongly respect that. Yet the money of the donations, which is given for a universal cause, is paying an incredibly tiny subset of humanity with very expensive standards of life. I think that's something pertinent to consider given the topic. I think you missed my point. I was saying that we don't need those things and it would be irresponsible of us to try to keep up with the average Tech company, as James Salsman had suggested. Leslie ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Leslie Carr Wikimedia Foundation AS 14907, 43821 http://as14907.peeringdb.com/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Dec 30, 2012, at 3:40 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means. Where are plans for the April fundraiser being discussed? It means multivariate testing in X languages is siginificantly more resource intensive than A/B testing in one language. Impractibly so for the fundraising team, IMHO. At least that is what I meant with that plus the following statement that you removed. The meaning required both to be read together. You are subscribed to the same mailing list I am, yet you have been regularly asking people to dig out information that I myself am well aware of. And I do not get any information any place else than this list (except maybe wikitech-l which I am currently months and months behind on). Pay attention or search your own emails. You may not realize this, but your recent messages seem rather disingenuous. Do your own research. Reply individually to others with the full context intact. Actually address the points of the message you reply to straight on, instead of sending the thread on a tangent. Or else, accept that you will be judged insincere and do not be surprised when people largely stop responding to your emails. I am done myself, unless you alter your approach. Birgitte SB (who really hates when people over-snip) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
The April fundraiser is on translated messages IIRC. Your suggestion is not at all practical for the fundraising team to implement. Also it is terrible idea, which ignores the high costs of planning to hold deliberations in a few months which is designed to nullify the results of recently concluded deliberations. People have work to do in January, February, and March. No sane person can be expected to be put in a holding pattern for three months before an organizations STARTS to decide what internal projects will be supported. If you think there is a talent retention problem now, well if you had your way the current numbers would be blown out of the water by the coming stampede of departures. BirgitteSB On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down. Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee. How do we even know that salary is a factor in people voluntarily leaving? Has it been established in exit interviews? If I felt strongly about salary, I wouldnt have a problem speaking up, but please don't put words in my mouth. Leslie whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Leslie Carr Wikimedia Foundation AS 14907, 43821 http://as14907.peeringdb.com/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
Le 29/12/2012 17:01, Leslie Carr a écrit : On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, I've bit my tongue at this a bunch of times but I need to finally put my foot down. Which tech employees are saying that we need our salaries to be at Bay Area tech standards. Sure, I'd love a big raise (I'm greedy!). I took a pay cut to come work at the Foundation. However, I'm not starving, I'm not living in the ghetto with 20 people huddled into a single room, and most importantly, I knew what my salary was going to be when I joined the foundation. I knew that I wouldn't be getting bonuses, stock options, massages, breakfast, lunch, dinner, baristas, onsite personal trainers, onsite physical therapists, haircuts, dentists, business class everywhere (that might have been the hardest thing to give up!), nutritionists, aeron chairs, dry cleaning, laundry, and all that. And you know what -- if I did get those things, I have a feeling that it wouldn't look too good to our donors, and we'd be having the exact opposite discussion. Plus, I can make my own coffee. So is this document, which states otherwise, obsolete? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/2a/Wikimedia_Foundation_Compensation_Practices.pdf Some quotes: annually in July, staff are eligible for a merit increase. The Wikimedia Foundation offers a benefits package for all staff, which includes medical, dental, vision and life insurance. small services are provided such as coffee and soda. Food is occasionally also provided for working lunches or dinners, at the supervisors' discretion. In-office massage is provided monthly at a discounted rate. once a month a staff lunch is provided. Once a quarter, a staff outing is staged. Once a year, there is a holiday party. staff are encouraged to work with their supervisors to plan for their professional development, which might include attending a professional conference, taking a course, or working with a coach. All spending on professional development is approved in advance by the supervisor. the Wikimedia Foundation intends to launch a wellness program , in which staff will be reimbursed, within a set monthly limit, for expenses related to personal health and wellness. These might include for example the costs of counselling services, massage, yoga classes, or gym memberships. Possibilities may include for example tuition reimbursements and the creation of a sabbatical program. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote: That's accurate. But there's no dentists onsite, no massage center, no chefs, no barista making my latte, etc, etc I'm a pretty good barista, so for a small fee, I'd be happy to make your coffee ;) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] compromise?
How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis... You only seem to be talking about one variable - the message. On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
That would be complex, and could be a disaster... I'd appreciate some input from folks like Tango. On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis I mean as in the tests done May 16, September 20, and October 9 reported at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough without adjusting the best performing pull-down delivery combined banner/landing page from the beginning of this month (although I don't think we will need the one that follows vertical scrolling. It may produce 30% but that will be nothing if the remaining ~300 appeal messages are tested, unless they don't fit the lognormal distribution that they appear to.) That would be complex, and could be a disaster... What are the possible failure modes? On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, James Salsman jsalsman at gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personnel to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personell to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? I would prefer all Wikimedia organizations continue to make decisions based on what we really want to get done (i.e. our strategic goals and priorities), then find the money to do those things. Not the other way around. Steven ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
I'm on a train so this will be brief... But let's say we do what you suggest, and it only raises 90% of what is needed. What then? I've had to pare back WMUKs budget in the past few weeks to what the FDC granted. It's difficult enough to do on a smaller budget, I dread to think how the WMF would do it if they had to. A large organisation lucky enough to have a good income should use that income to plan ahead, rather than using fundraising as an artificial cap. You do raise good points on some subjects though - eg workers remuneration, which is generally poor in the US - but it's very difficult to discuss that via a public mailing list. On Dec 28, 2012 10:12 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis I mean as in the tests done May 16, September 20, and October 9 reported at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough without adjusting the best performing pull-down delivery combined banner/landing page from the beginning of this month (although I don't think we will need the one that follows vertical scrolling. It may produce 30% but that will be nothing if the remaining ~300 appeal messages are tested, unless they don't fit the lognormal distribution that they appear to.) That would be complex, and could be a disaster... What are the possible failure modes? On Dec 28, 2012 9:46 PM, James Salsman jsalsman at gmail.com wrote: How about for the April fundraiser, instead of setting a dollar value goal, we agree to use multivariate analysis instead of A/B testing to optimize the messaging from volunteer submissions in advance, then run the whole thing for a fixed time frame, say three weeks, and then use the actual amount raised to decide whether salaries should be competitive with area tech firms, whether Fellowships should be jettisoned, how much personnel to put into the Education Program and engineering, and how much of a reserve to invest, preferably with low risk instruments which pay above the rate of inflation? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] compromise?
On Dec 28, 2012 10:12 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean by multivariate analysis I mean as in the tests done May 16, September 20, and October 9 reported at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2012/We_Need_A_Breakthrough without adjusting the best performing pull-down delivery combined banner/landing page from the beginning of this month (although I don't think we will need the one that follows vertical scrolling. It may produce 30% but that will be nothing if the remaining ~300 appeal messages are tested, unless they don't fit the lognormal distribution that they appear to.) But what variables do you want to test? You've only talked about messages. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
