171–180 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also office space: 100 - 200 sq.ft. per employee * $75/sq.ft. in SF -> $7k5 - $15k per employee.
That's like for the MOST expensive office space in SF though. Also that's PER YEAR, not per month. I once rented out office space in SOMA, and it was more like $18 sqft/year. It was cheap and in a shitty place, but still SOMA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think $200K/person is fine, but I do quibble with this: > They are in Silicon Valley and have to compete with everyone else in Silicon Valley Why? Why compete for talent in Silicon Valley when there are people all over the country who'd love to work on something like this? I can get why they might prefer not to do remote teams (it's a challenge), but there are cities like Seattle, Boston, Denver, Dallas, Kansas Cit…
As covered elsewhere, most of the team is remote. But they still get SV salaries because great people get those salaries no matter where they are.
To everyone complaining about the $250K (see edit, it's actually 200K) per person in salary (which seems to be everyone at the moment), a few things to keep in mind: 1) That includes benefits 2) They are in Silicon Valley and have to compete with everyone else in Silicon Valley 3) Given what they have accomplished with such a small team, these are probably high caliber people. 4) In SV there is a good 25% premium you…
> To everyone complaining about the $250K (see edit, it's actually 200K) per person in salary I don't think people are _complaining_ about it, just expressing surprise/shock. It's one thing to read the anonymous "I know a guy who's brother's roommate makes $300K at Google" comments that you have to take with a grain of salt, but another thing to see an actual company's data. Eye opening for sure.
Honestly if it's surprise/shock it's _still_ a bit strange.
To everyone complaining about the $250K (see edit, it's actually 200K) per person in salary (which seems to be everyone at the moment), a few things to keep in mind: 1) That includes benefits 2) They are in Silicon Valley and have to compete with everyone else in Silicon Valley 3) Given what they have accomplished with such a small team, these are probably high caliber people. 4) In SV there is a good 25% premium you…
How many websites now have HTTPS because of LetsEncrypt? How much would they have needed to pay for certificates from an incumbent CA?
To everyone complaining about the $250K (see edit, it's actually 200K) per person in salary (which seems to be everyone at the moment), a few things to keep in mind: 1) That includes benefits 2) They are in Silicon Valley and have to compete with everyone else in Silicon Valley 3) Given what they have accomplished with such a small team, these are probably high caliber people. 4) In SV there is a good 25% premium you…
Complaining about that is insane. To put it in perspective, almost any Fortune 500 is paying $200k for a contract Level-2 helpdesk analyst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe there's something very obvious I'm missing - but why? If their environments are not bare-metal then moving from a virtual solution to a cloud one seems fairly simple. If they are bare-metal then it hardly seems necessary for issuing certs - but if you have more insight I'd love if you'd share it!
CAs require special hardware security modules (HSM) to contain the signing keys and have to control the entire path to them, so yes, you need to own your hardware for a public CA. And independence from their sponsors is an important organisational feature for Let's Encrypt.
I'm quite surprised - $2.06 on staffing seemed steep, so obviously read on as I was thinking that there must be a lot of employees. But 8? OK, I'm just a teacher, and I earn around £30k a year... not the kind of figures I've seen bandied about on here for graduate programmers who seem to be pulling in 8-10 times that for their first job... So I'd be interested to see a breakdown of the payroll (which I doubt would ha…
- School districts in SF and Oakland are short dozens of teachers -- imagine having sixty classrooms on the first day of school where there is no teacher. (e.g. http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Bay-Area-school-dist... from last year)
- San Francisco is basically building "dorms" for teachers to give them a place to live: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mayor-and-SFUSD-have-a...
- Many teachers are leaving the area to go work in more affordable parts of the country: http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/teacher-pay/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"plus two full time staff that are employed by other entities (Mozilla and EFF)" So, that's 10. $206k/employee The accepted amount of benefits & costs per employee is around 35%, so now we're at $134k/employee. This is not a high salary for an engineer in San Francisco. In fact, I'd say it's pretty damn low.
LE isn't paying for the staff coming from Mozilla and EFF. The 2.06m is split across 8 people, not 10. EDIT: Per a follow up tweet, the staffing is expected to increase to 10 in 2017 (presumably plus the two from third parties), so it is /10, not /8, but not for the reason you described.