[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

[Samuel Klein]

Andreas,

Are you ... sealioning WMF staff?  Please don't.  

You've been posting a lot

lately,
when that happens one can forget to be kind.  I do find you're taking an
overly jaundiced view.

Fewer, shorter messages keep the list more usable by others. You don't need
to respond to everyone.  Rants and nitpicks are better suited to channels
*without* *mass **push-*notifications, like the wiki.  There's an FAQ

on
Meta for every 990, as you know
,
for Qs like this.

And you should stop calling out individual staff, period.  Including for
salary analyses. That is the least informative (for reasons Christophe laid
out) and most disruptive use of the public information which we are all
glad to have access to.

Warmly, SJ
(ramping back my own posting for a while!)


On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:11 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear WMF accounts staff,
>
> Could you kindly clarify whether the "Salaries, other compensation,
> employee benefits" figure in Part I, line 15 of the Form 990 relates solely
> to the 291 employees indicated in Part I, line 5, or whether it also
> includes salaries, compensation and benefits for the 82 contractors listed
> in Part V, line 1a of the Form 990.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Andreas
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DJ5FEGQDMECLWVQCFBFBLNY7LKEXMSBC/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KURR7UZYRJNZ67J6LA2ERSWUVZE5MOCE/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Black WikiHistory Month

[Pharos]

I wanted to share the page for Black WikiHistory Month events by Afrocrowd
and others, to mark Black History Month in the US (it is marked differently
in other countries):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Black_WikiHistory_Month#February_2022

I'm sure there are more edit-a-thons and other events to add!

One we'd welcome wide participation on is the Afrofuturist Period Room
campaign with the Metropolitan Museum of Art, running throughout February,
with a virtual launch on Feb 5:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/MetAfrofuturist

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YSGSE3U2PDYNS44PPZMNNX7FJ3CIMBHS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

I'd just like to point out that trying to move to a new location in this
pandemic era, especially in a country with (pardon me if I give offense
but) widespread skepticism if not outright resistance to vaccinations, can
be quite risky to one's health or the health of one's families. So I think
we should take such a discussion out of this thread. The location of
employees generally for future hires could be something to be discussed,
but perhaps that too should be in a separate thread.

Ariel

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 4:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> These public disclosures of both overall salary costs and top-earners'
> individual salaries are mandated by law.
>
> There is little point in having legislators mandate public disclosures if
> then nobody reads and discusses them.
>
> This said, I am quite open to being told that I take a too jaundiced view
> of some things. I am also aware that many WMF staff located in San
> Francisco are not "rich" by any means, even though they may on paper be
> earning four or five times what someone doing the same job in Europe or
> Asia is earning. This has to do with the fact that WMF salaries fluctuate
> widely, those at the bottom earning far less than those at the top, and the
> cost of living in San Francisco is exorbitant.
>
> But I do ask myself, especially in view of the past two years of Covid and
> Zoom meetings, and so many people working from home, what point there is in
> having large numbers of WMF staffers based in San Francisco.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that discussing salaries (even if publicly
>> disclosed) of named persons on this mailing list is highly inappropriate?
>>
>> (I have no relation to WMF or any of these persons, for the record).
>>
>> Best
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Christophe,
>>>
>>> "First year" applies in Jaime Villagomez' case (who took over as CFO on
>>> Feb. 1, 2016). Thank you for pointing that out. If his 2016 salary of
>>> $237,665 was only for eleven months (yielding an annual salary figure of
>>> 12/11 x 237,665 = 259,270), that does reduce the increase over three years
>>> to about $30,000.
>>>
>>> Toby Negrin and Lisa Seitz-Gruwell both joined before 2016, so no
>>> first-year exception applies in their cases.
>>>
>>> You say it's important to look at the percentage increases. Let's do so.
>>>
>>> In Jaime's case, with 2016–2019 base salaries of $259,270 (est.),
>>> $264,341, $275,495 and $289,356, I arrive at annual percentage increases of
>>> 2.0%, 4.2% and 5.0%.
>>>
>>> In Lisa's case ($209,706, $216,556, $229,170, $252,117) I make the
>>> increases 3.3%, 5.8%, 10.0%.
>>>
>>> In Toby's case ($192,018, $214,504, $228,023, $237,992) the increases
>>> were 11.7%, 6.3%, 4.4%.
>>>
>>> Per the Form 990 info, WMF salary costs per head increased year-on-year
>>> by 13%, 7% and 6% (if you use Anne's method of calculating the average
>>> salary cost per head; with the one I first used only the first figure would
>>> change, to 15%, while the other two are unaffected).
>>>
>>> As for market practice in the US, according to the US Average Wage
>>> Index[1], the average increases in those years were 3.45%, 3.62% and 3.75%.
>>>
>>> The above salary increases are well above these national averages. They
>>> are also, it must be said, financed by fundraising banners making people
>>> believe that Wikimedia is struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia
>>> up and running.
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:05 PM Christophe Henner <
>>> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 I'm sorry but I feel that discussion is loaded and meant to create a
 heated debate and not provide good analysis data points.

 I was surprised by your claims, so I picked one example, not giving
 names to not single anyone out.

 First, you assume the first year is systematically a full year, it
 never is. And yes even if you arrive mid january, it does take a dent in
 your yearly compensation (it represents 5%).
 Second, you voluntarily speak in numbers and not ratio, which makes all
 data easy to twist. The one I checked had a 4% to 6% yearly salary increase
 which all in all is market practice in the US (we can argue about the
 discrepancies but hey).
 Third, even if you spot a higher increase, going into personal details
 about the increase is meaningless (such increases can be related to pre
 negotiated increase, to planned catch up on cost of living, on role change,
 role expansion, new responsibilities, beyond expectations achievements, a
 load of valid HR reasons).

 If only on very specific and verifiable data points like those I can
 find how you distort reality to fit your narrative I can only assume you
 are doing the same 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Yaroslav,

These public disclosures of both overall salary costs and top-earners'
individual salaries are mandated by law.

There is little point in having legislators mandate public disclosures if
then nobody reads and discusses them.

This said, I am quite open to being told that I take a too jaundiced view
of some things. I am also aware that many WMF staff located in San
Francisco are not "rich" by any means, even though they may on paper be
earning four or five times what someone doing the same job in Europe or
Asia is earning. This has to do with the fact that WMF salaries fluctuate
widely, those at the bottom earning far less than those at the top, and the
cost of living in San Francisco is exorbitant.

But I do ask myself, especially in view of the past two years of Covid and
Zoom meetings, and so many people working from home, what point there is in
having large numbers of WMF staffers based in San Francisco.

Andreas

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:33 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Am I the only one who thinks that discussing salaries (even if publicly
> disclosed) of named persons on this mailing list is highly inappropriate?
>
> (I have no relation to WMF or any of these persons, for the record).
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Christophe,
>>
>> "First year" applies in Jaime Villagomez' case (who took over as CFO on
>> Feb. 1, 2016). Thank you for pointing that out. If his 2016 salary of
>> $237,665 was only for eleven months (yielding an annual salary figure of
>> 12/11 x 237,665 = 259,270), that does reduce the increase over three years
>> to about $30,000.
>>
>> Toby Negrin and Lisa Seitz-Gruwell both joined before 2016, so no
>> first-year exception applies in their cases.
>>
>> You say it's important to look at the percentage increases. Let's do so.
>>
>> In Jaime's case, with 2016–2019 base salaries of $259,270 (est.),
>> $264,341, $275,495 and $289,356, I arrive at annual percentage increases of
>> 2.0%, 4.2% and 5.0%.
>>
>> In Lisa's case ($209,706, $216,556, $229,170, $252,117) I make the
>> increases 3.3%, 5.8%, 10.0%.
>>
>> In Toby's case ($192,018, $214,504, $228,023, $237,992) the increases
>> were 11.7%, 6.3%, 4.4%.
>>
>> Per the Form 990 info, WMF salary costs per head increased year-on-year
>> by 13%, 7% and 6% (if you use Anne's method of calculating the average
>> salary cost per head; with the one I first used only the first figure would
>> change, to 15%, while the other two are unaffected).
>>
>> As for market practice in the US, according to the US Average Wage
>> Index[1], the average increases in those years were 3.45%, 3.62% and 3.75%.
>>
>> The above salary increases are well above these national averages. They
>> are also, it must be said, financed by fundraising banners making people
>> believe that Wikimedia is struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia
>> up and running.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:05 PM Christophe Henner <
>> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but I feel that discussion is loaded and meant to create a
>>> heated debate and not provide good analysis data points.
>>>
>>> I was surprised by your claims, so I picked one example, not giving
>>> names to not single anyone out.
>>>
>>> First, you assume the first year is systematically a full year, it never
>>> is. And yes even if you arrive mid january, it does take a dent in your
>>> yearly compensation (it represents 5%).
>>> Second, you voluntarily speak in numbers and not ratio, which makes all
>>> data easy to twist. The one I checked had a 4% to 6% yearly salary increase
>>> which all in all is market practice in the US (we can argue about the
>>> discrepancies but hey).
>>> Third, even if you spot a higher increase, going into personal details
>>> about the increase is meaningless (such increases can be related to pre
>>> negotiated increase, to planned catch up on cost of living, on role change,
>>> role expansion, new responsibilities, beyond expectations achievements, a
>>> load of valid HR reasons).
>>>
>>> If only on very specific and verifiable data points like those I can
>>> find how you distort reality to fit your narrative I can only assume you
>>> are doing the same for the rest of the discussion.
>>>
>>> Public eye provides a safeguard for problems and financial abuses, yes
>>> (and that's why 503c are public).
>>>
>>> But twisting those data to spread gratuitous shade on people working for
>>> the Foundation (and even naming them) is wrong and honestly shows a lack of
>>> empathy (you don't care about how people can live when their integrity is
>>> attacked while they are committed).
>>>
>>> So I am happy to jump in Spreadsheet and discuss compensations, but if
>>> we are to do it, let's at the very least do it with a benevolent approach
>>> and minding the people whose job is talked about.
>>>
>>> Just a bit of empathy and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Am I the only one who thinks that discussing salaries (even if publicly
disclosed) of named persons on this mailing list is highly inappropriate?

(I have no relation to WMF or any of these persons, for the record).

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 1:45 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Christophe,
>
> "First year" applies in Jaime Villagomez' case (who took over as CFO on
> Feb. 1, 2016). Thank you for pointing that out. If his 2016 salary of
> $237,665 was only for eleven months (yielding an annual salary figure of
> 12/11 x 237,665 = 259,270), that does reduce the increase over three years
> to about $30,000.
>
> Toby Negrin and Lisa Seitz-Gruwell both joined before 2016, so no
> first-year exception applies in their cases.
>
> You say it's important to look at the percentage increases. Let's do so.
>
> In Jaime's case, with 2016–2019 base salaries of $259,270 (est.),
> $264,341, $275,495 and $289,356, I arrive at annual percentage increases of
> 2.0%, 4.2% and 5.0%.
>
> In Lisa's case ($209,706, $216,556, $229,170, $252,117) I make the
> increases 3.3%, 5.8%, 10.0%.
>
> In Toby's case ($192,018, $214,504, $228,023, $237,992) the increases
> were 11.7%, 6.3%, 4.4%.
>
> Per the Form 990 info, WMF salary costs per head increased year-on-year by
> 13%, 7% and 6% (if you use Anne's method of calculating the average salary
> cost per head; with the one I first used only the first figure would
> change, to 15%, while the other two are unaffected).
>
> As for market practice in the US, according to the US Average Wage
> Index[1], the average increases in those years were 3.45%, 3.62% and 3.75%.
>
> The above salary increases are well above these national averages. They
> are also, it must be said, financed by fundraising banners making people
> believe that Wikimedia is struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia
> up and running.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:05 PM Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sorry but I feel that discussion is loaded and meant to create a
>> heated debate and not provide good analysis data points.
>>
>> I was surprised by your claims, so I picked one example, not giving names
>> to not single anyone out.
>>
>> First, you assume the first year is systematically a full year, it never
>> is. And yes even if you arrive mid january, it does take a dent in your
>> yearly compensation (it represents 5%).
>> Second, you voluntarily speak in numbers and not ratio, which makes all
>> data easy to twist. The one I checked had a 4% to 6% yearly salary increase
>> which all in all is market practice in the US (we can argue about the
>> discrepancies but hey).
>> Third, even if you spot a higher increase, going into personal details
>> about the increase is meaningless (such increases can be related to pre
>> negotiated increase, to planned catch up on cost of living, on role change,
>> role expansion, new responsibilities, beyond expectations achievements, a
>> load of valid HR reasons).
>>
>> If only on very specific and verifiable data points like those I can find
>> how you distort reality to fit your narrative I can only assume you are
>> doing the same for the rest of the discussion.
>>
>> Public eye provides a safeguard for problems and financial abuses, yes
>> (and that's why 503c are public).
>>
>> But twisting those data to spread gratuitous shade on people working for
>> the Foundation (and even naming them) is wrong and honestly shows a lack of
>> empathy (you don't care about how people can live when their integrity is
>> attacked while they are committed).
>>
>> So I am happy to jump in Spreadsheet and discuss compensations, but if we
>> are to do it, let's at the very least do it with a benevolent approach and
>> minding the people whose job is talked about.
>>
>> Just a bit of empathy and care goes a long way :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Correction:
>>>
>>> The 2016 base salary figure for Lisa in my previous mail should have
>>> read $209,706, not $192,018.
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:55 PM Andreas Kolbe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Chris,

 All the numbers are taken from the official Form 990s filed. You can
 verify them for yourself here:

 https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703

 There is also a table of top-earners' base salaries on Meta, with data
 taken from the Form 990:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries

 Have a look. They show various individuals' salaries increasing by
 remarkable amounts in recent years.

 Jaime Villagomez' base salary for example increased by more than
 $50,000 in three years, from $237,665 in 2016 to $289,356 in 2019.

 Toby Negrin's base salary increased by more than $45,000 over the same
 time period (from $192,018 to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

[Andreas Kolbe]

Christophe,

"First year" applies in Jaime Villagomez' case (who took over as CFO on
Feb. 1, 2016). Thank you for pointing that out. If his 2016 salary of
$237,665 was only for eleven months (yielding an annual salary figure of
12/11 x 237,665 = 259,270), that does reduce the increase over three years
to about $30,000.

Toby Negrin and Lisa Seitz-Gruwell both joined before 2016, so no
first-year exception applies in their cases.

You say it's important to look at the percentage increases. Let's do so.

In Jaime's case, with 2016–2019 base salaries of $259,270 (est.), $264,341,
$275,495 and $289,356, I arrive at annual percentage increases of 2.0%,
4.2% and 5.0%.

In Lisa's case ($209,706, $216,556, $229,170, $252,117) I make the
increases 3.3%, 5.8%, 10.0%.

In Toby's case ($192,018, $214,504, $228,023, $237,992) the increases
were 11.7%, 6.3%, 4.4%.

Per the Form 990 info, WMF salary costs per head increased year-on-year by
13%, 7% and 6% (if you use Anne's method of calculating the average salary
cost per head; with the one I first used only the first figure would
change, to 15%, while the other two are unaffected).

As for market practice in the US, according to the US Average Wage
Index[1], the average increases in those years were 3.45%, 3.62% and 3.75%.

The above salary increases are well above these national averages. They are
also, it must be said, financed by fundraising banners making people
believe that Wikimedia is struggling to have enough money to keep Wikipedia
up and running.

Andreas

[1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html



On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 10:05 PM Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm sorry but I feel that discussion is loaded and meant to create a
> heated debate and not provide good analysis data points.
>
> I was surprised by your claims, so I picked one example, not giving names
> to not single anyone out.
>
> First, you assume the first year is systematically a full year, it never
> is. And yes even if you arrive mid january, it does take a dent in your
> yearly compensation (it represents 5%).
> Second, you voluntarily speak in numbers and not ratio, which makes all
> data easy to twist. The one I checked had a 4% to 6% yearly salary increase
> which all in all is market practice in the US (we can argue about the
> discrepancies but hey).
> Third, even if you spot a higher increase, going into personal details
> about the increase is meaningless (such increases can be related to pre
> negotiated increase, to planned catch up on cost of living, on role change,
> role expansion, new responsibilities, beyond expectations achievements, a
> load of valid HR reasons).
>
> If only on very specific and verifiable data points like those I can find
> how you distort reality to fit your narrative I can only assume you are
> doing the same for the rest of the discussion.
>
> Public eye provides a safeguard for problems and financial abuses, yes
> (and that's why 503c are public).
>
> But twisting those data to spread gratuitous shade on people working for
> the Foundation (and even naming them) is wrong and honestly shows a lack of
> empathy (you don't care about how people can live when their integrity is
> attacked while they are committed).
>
> So I am happy to jump in Spreadsheet and discuss compensations, but if we
> are to do it, let's at the very least do it with a benevolent approach and
> minding the people whose job is talked about.
>
> Just a bit of empathy and care goes a long way :)
>
>
> --
> Christophe
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:20, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Correction:
>>
>> The 2016 base salary figure for Lisa in my previous mail should have read
>> $209,706, not $192,018.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 1:55 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> All the numbers are taken from the official Form 990s filed. You can
>>> verify them for yourself here:
>>>
>>> https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200049703
>>>
>>> There is also a table of top-earners' base salaries on Meta, with data
>>> taken from the Form 990:
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
>>>
>>> Have a look. They show various individuals' salaries increasing by
>>> remarkable amounts in recent years.
>>>
>>> Jaime Villagomez' base salary for example increased by more than $50,000
>>> in three years, from $237,665 in 2016 to $289,356 in 2019.
>>>
>>> Toby Negrin's base salary increased by more than $45,000 over the same
>>> time period (from $192,018 to $237,992).
>>>
>>> Lisa Seitz-Gruwell's base salary increased by more than $40,000 over
>>> that period (from $192,018 to $252,117).
>>>
>>> These are all base salaries, excluding "other compensation", which adds
>>> another $34K, $33K and $21K to the salary figures for these three
>>> individuals, respectively.
>>>
>>> You can find the above figures on Page 7 of the following forms:
>>>
>>> The 2016 Form 990 is here:
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: board accountability [was Re: Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)]

[Kunal Mehta]

Hi,

On 1/30/22 21:14, Luis Villa wrote:
(2) What mechanisms was/is the board using to measure organizational 
health? For example, in 2015 we did an employee engagement survey only 
when morale had already plummeted over a cliff; the board never asked 
for one. Should it have? If not, what should it have been doing instead? 
(The way it did listen to staff—anonymous backchannels available only to 
certain staff—was… honestly not ideal. I understand that the HR team now 
does regular engagement surveys; no idea if those are reported to the 
board’s Talent and Culture Committee[2]?)


This is no longer the case, no survey was held in 2021 and AIUI the 2020 
results were significantly delayed and not properly/fully released to staff.


I'm not aware of any significant improvements to the board<-->staff 
communication channels either. The board promised staff an ombudsperson 
back during the 2015-era drama that never materialized despite staff 
repeatedly asking for it. Given today's circumstances and problems, I 
would expect that such an ombudsperson would need to be elected/selected 
by staff, not the board/management.


-- Legoktm
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/N24OTUSVHSGCVVQF7FAPSTBBBCGXW23I/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org