> I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. My view is that the Foundation was suddenly (but not without warning) made legally responsible for its own content after Trump made hosting providers responsible for facilitating online prostitution advertising, at pretty much the same time the GDPR went in to effect. The Foundation has frequently tried a number of paid editing trials, and I think that's a good thing because donors are likely to stabilize at paying enough to pay all the past, present, and future wikipedias a very comfortable hourly rate, plus interest, still have a large and swiftly endowment to figure out how to invest responsibly, and will be able to outfit offline applications such as space hotels with a new LCARS skin I am trying to get Mike Okuda to commission.
> After this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and > see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the > community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it > happen. I think the Foundation employees know I support them. I recently asked their boss to make sure they are able to afford the median SF home capable of bird ranching. For the record, I think most crucial tech employees in Norcal are not paid what they are actually worth, because then they would have greater labor mobility. This has come about after attempts at colluding in no-poaching agreements and needs to be corrected. The Foundation needs to take the lead on lowering their income inequality by raising employee salaries. (As the topic has included appropriate use of donor funds.) Best regards, Jim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
