Re: [Wikimedia-l] 24-hour fundraising test
On 16 November 2012 16:30, Megan Hernandez wrote: > **You did it the right way, I think most people realize what a treasure > trove of information Wikipedia has and your message was simple and honest, > no tug-at-the-heartstrings kind of stuff. Appeals to smart people.* > ** "This big, plain blue banner really caught my eye, and its message was > simple yet powerful. So I gave my 5$."* > **I liked the non-intrusive but catchy banner and the quick payment option.* > **Really like the philosophy, the information and the layout.* > ** The banner I clicked on felt simple and honest, and it reminded me that > Wikipedia is a global resource which needs funding to pay for its resource > usage* > ** when put very straight-forwardly, honestly, and especially factually, I > felt a bigger obligation to donate* > ** "I've seen requests for donations before,but never as grabbing as this > one. The blue and white, the boldness, made me pay attention."* > ** i clicked b/c for once the fund-drive banner was green instead of dismal > gray. * > ** " Being blue they aren't too invasive. They also made me chill a little > and think about how great Wiki is."* "Simple, honest, straightforward, not too invasive" -- that's all *exactly* what I want to hear. The annual campaign is always a series of tradeoffs -- balancing annoyance-of-readers against the desire to bring in revenue. I am so happy that this year the team has managed to test and refine and optimize such that we're annoying people less, and still making the money we need. I am so proud of everybody working on this campaign :-) Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 24-hour fundraising test
Hello again, The 24-hour test came down earlier today. Overall, the test went really well and helped us prepare even better for the full launch. We raised nearly $2 million USD from more than 130,000 donors. (FYI, our best day last year was $1.2 million.) We plan to run short tests next week and then launch 100% on Monday, November 26. Two main goals this year (other than raising the budget), are to shorten the length of the fundraiser and to educate our readers about Wikipedia. These new banners with the facts will help us reach these goals. The personal appeal banners from previous years are not working as well anymore, and the facts banners are bringing in a lot more donations. We're still testing new variations, so you'll be seeing different versions over the next weeks. Thank you to everyone who helped us identify improvements to make on translations, form elements, and the overall user experience in different countries. We got a lot of good feedback yesterday on improvements to make over the next week before launching 100%. Please keep sending in suggestions or fixes if you spot something in the short tests next week: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2012 And now for my favorite part, check out some comments from our donors who want to thank you: ** Um, thanks for everything? Whenever I've needed to know anything for work, school, or a sudden interest in the French Revolution at 2am, BOOM, Wikipedia, knowledge gained. I'm probably 17 IQ points smarter because of Wiki at my fingertips. You're "le best," as the French revolutionaries would say.* ** There is nothing more important than the freedom of knowledge.* ** this site helps my creativity* ** about 80% of my knowledgebase is thanks to you guys. Without your work I'd be dumb as a post. :) -Anonymous genetic engineer* ** ** Thank you for being 50% responsible for my college learning experience.* *You guys are bringing such a huge gift to society. I know you guys probably work like dogs to cite everything, but it is all worth it! Be proud of what you do and how you give the greatest gift anyone could have : knowledge* **A haiku for you: Wikipedia, what a team you are, stay fly Wikipedia.* ** I trust Wikipedia. I assume your volunteer editors are competent, learned, well-educated, and strongly devoted to their work. I salute them.* ** I love Wiki! Need it in my life!* ** BRAVO!!!* ** my creativity has been able to flourish due to the information available and references by wiki. thank you* ** To the Wikipedia editors and contributors: I want to thank you for your hard work and dedication to providing reliable, clearly organized, and well written information on a wide variety of topics. You make a world of information available to anyone with computer internet access. You are greatly appreciated (especially by students like me). Keep up the good work and high standards for information and references.* ** I don't know if this message will reach anybody but: I have immense respect for what you do. The temptation to monetize on what is clearly a multibillion dollar product must be immense. The fact that Wikipedia recognizes its value to society and chooses to provide such a wonderful service to everyone, solely because the organization believes that it is the right thing to do, is inspiring. I tip my hat to the founders and all of its employees. (yes, this guy got a response from us:) * ** You wikiplete me.* *I have used Wikipedia every day for the past... Decade, perhaps. It has helped infinitely in making me a successful person, and not just in business. I will always be grateful for this wonderful resource, and for the people behind it.* * And here's donor feedback on the banners: * **You did it the right way, I think most people realize what a treasure trove of information Wikipedia has and your message was simple and honest, no tug-at-the-heartstrings kind of stuff. Appeals to smart people.* ** "This big, plain blue banner really caught my eye, and its message was simple yet powerful. So I gave my 5$."* **I liked the non-intrusive but catchy banner and the quick payment option.* **Really like the philosophy, the information and the layout.* ** The banner I clicked on felt simple and honest, and it reminded me that Wikipedia is a global resource which needs funding to pay for its resource usage* ** when put very straight-forwardly, honestly, and especially factually, I felt a bigger obligation to donate* ** "I've seen requests for donations before,but never as grabbing as this one. The blue and white, the boldness, made me pay attention."* ** i clicked b/c for once the fund-drive banner was green instead of dismal gray. * ** " Being blue they aren't too invasive. They also made me chill a little and think about how great Wiki is."* Thank you & have a great weekend! Megan On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Megan Hernandez wrote: > Hi all, > > We're running a 24-hour fundraising test today, Thursday, Nov. 15. We're > u
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
Andrew Gray, 16/11/2012 16:43: On 16 November 2012 15:30, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: But I think the point (at leat originally) was not so much to have the global discussion forum or the global village pump, but to have a common place for Wikivoyage discussions, which so far were held on the old Wikivoyage, but now are stale since the old Wikivoyage is locked for editing, and anyway it is not a WMF project. Wikisource has a multilingual central project: among other things, one of the goals is centralised cross-language coordination, through eg/ http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium It doesn't seem to be very heavily used, but the precedent is still there. I don't see any reason that Wikivoyage couldn't have a centralised wiki as well... wikisource.org is there for historical reasons because originally language subdomains for wikisource weren't planned. Its daily "core business" is 1) being the Wikisource portal, 2) hosting languages without a subdomain. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
On 16 November 2012 15:30, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > But I think the point (at leat originally) was not so much to have the > global discussion forum or the global village pump, but to have a common > place for Wikivoyage discussions, which so far were held on the old > Wikivoyage, but now are stale since the old Wikivoyage is locked for > editing, and anyway it is not a WMF project. Wikisource has a multilingual central project: among other things, one of the goals is centralised cross-language coordination, through eg/ http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium It doesn't seem to be very heavily used, but the precedent is still there. I don't see any reason that Wikivoyage couldn't have a centralised wiki as well... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:07:56 +0100, Juergen Fenn wrote: 2012/11/16 Ziko van Dijk : I agree to Ziko's point of view. I think we are at a crucial point in the Wikimedia movement because we now have the opportunity to finally create a common village pump for all projects. I think we should use the impetus from the adoption of Wikivoyage and new Wikidata and create a common place for discussion and anything meta between all projects on Meta Wiki. Regards, Jürgen. Actually, common village pump for all projects, it is located here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum Just nobody uses it, because most users are active in the projects and not active on meta, and global watchlists were discussed for at least five years and are on the way to be discussed for another five years at least. But I think the point (at leat originally) was not so much to have the global discussion forum or the global village pump, but to have a common place for Wikivoyage discussions, which so far were held on the old Wikivoyage, but now are stale since the old Wikivoyage is locked for editing, and anyway it is not a WMF project. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
2012/11/16 Ziko van Dijk : > You have a good point. Meta discussions on Wikipedia happen mainly on > English Wikipedia, sometimes on Meta Wiki. I personally prefer not to > create new wikis but to use Meta Wiki because otherwise people would > have to follow too many wikis. > I could imagine that it would be a good idea to have a more organized > discussion on the collaboration of the Wikimedia projects among each > other. This could also become more relevant with the introduction of > Wikidata. I agree to Ziko's point of view. I think we are at a crucial point in the Wikimedia movement because we now have the opportunity to finally create a common village pump for all projects. I think we should use the impetus from the adoption of Wikivoyage and new Wikidata and create a common place for discussion and anything meta between all projects on Meta Wiki. Regards, Jürgen. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
Hello Fussi, Instead of pointing out that WiVo is at the moment a rather small project, I think it would be helpful if the more experienced members of the Wikimedia movement here would be a little bit more constructive. :( You have a good point. Meta discussions on Wikipedia happen mainly on English Wikipedia, sometimes on Meta Wiki. I personally prefer not to create new wikis but to use Meta Wiki because otherwise people would have to follow too many wikis. I could imagine that it would be a good idea to have a more organized discussion on the collaboration of the Wikimedia projects among each other. This could also become more relevant with the introduction of Wikidata. Kind regards Ziko 2012/11/16 Federico Leva (Nemo) : > Stefan Fussan, 16/11/2012 14:23: > >> @Nemo: Of course. Just one page called lounge or whatever is too small. > > > You can take all the pages you want, if you're talking of available space to > write. (Usually, the less pages you use the better it is, because then more > people will have them watchlisted.) > > >> And >> we can not flood the metawiki with pages and discussions without any >> order. > > > Actually, you can. I doubt Meta-Wiki will even notice. Of course, if you use > subpages and/or a category it's better for everyone. > > >> I am sure, the general wiki was small. But why? We were de: and it. only. >> We talked directly via discussion pages. But things have changed >> significantly. >> >> Ok. I forgot the most important question... Are the language version and >> communities interested in coordinating the work and all the points I >> mentioned above? > > > This you should ask on Wikivoyage-l probably. > Usually, it's easier starting with something concrete to coordinate, rather > than asking about general abstract willingness to coordinate. > > Nemo > > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Yes, I know ;) But it certainly has a effect, larger or smaller. Probably, you would be faster if you can write a report in Polish and you discussed with others in Polish. 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of > the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an > excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the > entities. > > dariusz > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito < > os...@wikimediachile.cl> wrote: > >> I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you >> say it is irrelevant? Boo... >> (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the >> movement, not only about the FDC) >> >> >> 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak >> >>> >>> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us >>> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with >>> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to >>> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the >>> message to the letter. >>> >>> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work >>> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and >>> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought >>> alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own >>> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that >>> we >>> are fine with. >>> >>> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to >>> provide >>> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that >>> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and >>> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make >>> sure >>> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. >>> >>> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to >>> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, >>> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely >>> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making >>> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and >>> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the >>> chapters' side). >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Dariusz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I >>> would >>> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change >>> and so >>> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and >>> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even >>> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each >>> chapter, >>> > but about the process as a whole. >>> > >>> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any >>> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you >>> can't >>> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. >>> > >>> > Osmar Valdebenito G. >>> > >>> > >>> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton >>> > >>> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a >>> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that >>> she >>> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was >>> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. >>> I >>> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much >>> more >>> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). >>> > > >>> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A >>> well >>> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other >>> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details >>> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, >>> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of >>> > > time is saved by writing good reports. >>> > > >>> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we >>> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a >>> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board >>> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, >>> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what >>> it >>> > > is actually meant to achieve. >>> > > >>> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, >>> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is >>> > > worth doing properly. >>> > > >>> > > ___ >>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > > Unsubscribe: >>> https://li
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the entities. dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you > say it is irrelevant? Boo... > (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the > movement, not only about the FDC) > > > 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> >> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us >> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with >> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to >> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the >> message to the letter. >> >> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work >> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and >> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought >> alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own >> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that >> we >> are fine with. >> >> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to >> provide >> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that >> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and >> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure >> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. >> >> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to >> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, >> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely >> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making >> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and >> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the >> chapters' side). >> >> best, >> >> Dariusz >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito >> wrote: >> >> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I >> would >> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and >> so >> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and >> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even >> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each >> chapter, >> > but about the process as a whole. >> > >> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any >> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you >> can't >> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. >> > >> > Osmar Valdebenito G. >> > >> > >> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton >> > >> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a >> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she >> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was >> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I >> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more >> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). >> > > >> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well >> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other >> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details >> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, >> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of >> > > time is saved by writing good reports. >> > > >> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we >> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a >> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board >> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, >> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it >> > > is actually meant to achieve. >> > > >> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, >> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is >> > > worth doing properly. >> > > >> > > ___ >> > > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> __ >> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> profesor zarządzania >> kierownik
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you say it is irrelevant? Boo... (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement, not only about the FDC) 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > > Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us > have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with > NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to > it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the > message to the letter. > > One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work > relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and > different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought > alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own > models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we > are fine with. > > I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide > detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that > we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and > rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure > that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. > > However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to > make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, > is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely > do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making > efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and > collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the > chapters' side). > > best, > > Dariusz > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito > wrote: > > > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I > would > > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and > so > > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and > > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even > > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, > > but about the process as a whole. > > > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > > > Osmar Valdebenito G. > > > > > > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > > > > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > > > > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > > > time is saved by writing good reports. > > > > > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > > > is actually meant to achieve. > > > > > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > > > worth doing properly. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > __ > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > profesor zarządzania > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > ___ > 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
Stefan Fussan, 16/11/2012 14:23: @Nemo: Of course. Just one page called lounge or whatever is too small. You can take all the pages you want, if you're talking of available space to write. (Usually, the less pages you use the better it is, because then more people will have them watchlisted.) And we can not flood the metawiki with pages and discussions without any order. Actually, you can. I doubt Meta-Wiki will even notice. Of course, if you use subpages and/or a category it's better for everyone. I am sure, the general wiki was small. But why? We were de: and it. only. We talked directly via discussion pages. But things have changed significantly. Ok. I forgot the most important question... Are the language version and communities interested in coordinating the work and all the points I mentioned above? This you should ask on Wikivoyage-l probably. Usually, it's easier starting with something concrete to coordinate, rather than asking about general abstract willingness to coordinate. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
They did their job to evaluate more than 10 extensive applications, make their recommendations and provide a long report. They have even answered the questions and probably will be able to do if you have more questions. That was they work as volunteer and they did it. Probably everybody would like something different (as more details about every chapters) but they are not our employees and they have their right to say "We think that is enough". And once again, I want to remember that not everybody here speaks or write English as a native. Sometimes is really easy to demand people to write long reports, speak and engage in discussions when you have the privilege to be a speaker of the "global language", but it is not easy for all of us. This is something that must be considered if we are talking about "global movement", "inclusion of developing countries" and so on. Osmar Valdebenito G. 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito > wrote: > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are > making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just > volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. > Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation > to do it. > > I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - > they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, > at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't > an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we > wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff > can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers > do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still > require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to > find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we > need to re-think it. > > ___ > 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
thanks, Osmar. I don't have to state the obvious, that over the last couple of weeks we've been putting several hours per day into the FDC process, besides our real jobs, and besides the 4-day session we held. This is what needed to be done and we have no complaints and Thomas is right that being a volunteer is no excuse. It actually means that we participate voluntary, by free will, and without lowering any of the professional standards we bring from our real life. Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter. One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with. I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side). best, Dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, > but about the process as a whole. > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > Osmar Valdebenito G. > > > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > > time is saved by writing good reports. > > > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > > is actually meant to achieve. > > > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > > worth doing properly. > > > > ___ > > 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 > > > -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Dear Dariusz, dear Jan-Bart, Thank you very much for the hard work, you are volunteers as we all are. I am also admiring your insight and - pacience. A short note on the WCA: The WCA has never asked contributions from the member chapters, and there is still no budget. We will see how it will be financed in future, and I am confident that there will be found a reasonable solution. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation to do it. I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we need to re-think it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
@Nemo: Of course. Just one page called lounge or whatever is too small. And we can not flood the metawiki with pages and discussions without any order. I am sure, the general wiki was small. But why? We were de: and it. only. We talked directly via discussion pages. But things have changed significantly. Ok. I forgot the most important question... Are the language version and communities interested in coordinating the work and all the points I mentioned above? 2012/11/16 Tomasz Ganicz > 2012/11/16 Stefan Fussan : > > The Wikivoyage project is online now and i want to thank all of you who > > have been involved with this process. > > > > On the former Wikivoyage project we used to have a wiki called general: > for > > discussions that affect all language versions. I wonder why the WMF > project > > dont have something like this. Now I am trying to find a new place where > we > > all can: > > - discuss new features > > - discuss about the travel guide's structure > > - coordinate the work with templates to reduce redundant work > > - coordinate the work on travel maps > > - providing a set of English meta articles with rules and regulations > that > > we can hand over the community when a new language version is going to > start > > - providing a list of star articles in all language versions. > Contributors > > to an article will have an easy access to basic information without > looking > > through all wikis. Speaking a foreign language is not necessary to pick > > basic information (structure of districts, list of sights, addresses, > > hotels ...) > > > > I know, there is the meta wiki. But I am not sure. Maybe its too meta. > And > > the discoussion page or a Wikivoyager's Lounge may be too small. Ok... > the > > set of meta articles can be placed in anywhere the Incubator. But the > > remaining stuff? Maybe a separate Namespace for the WMF projects at Meta, > > maybe a wiki like our general: > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Maybe the simplest solution would be to create a meta wikiproject and > associated portal? > > See: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Special_interest_groups > > and an example: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz > > ___ > 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, but about the process as a whole. Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. Osmar Valdebenito G. 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > time is saved by writing good reports. > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > is actually meant to achieve. > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > worth doing properly. > > ___ > 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] A place for project wide discussions
2012/11/16 Stefan Fussan : > The Wikivoyage project is online now and i want to thank all of you who > have been involved with this process. > > On the former Wikivoyage project we used to have a wiki called general: for > discussions that affect all language versions. I wonder why the WMF project > dont have something like this. Now I am trying to find a new place where we > all can: > - discuss new features > - discuss about the travel guide's structure > - coordinate the work with templates to reduce redundant work > - coordinate the work on travel maps > - providing a set of English meta articles with rules and regulations that > we can hand over the community when a new language version is going to start > - providing a list of star articles in all language versions. Contributors > to an article will have an easy access to basic information without looking > through all wikis. Speaking a foreign language is not necessary to pick > basic information (structure of districts, list of sights, addresses, > hotels ...) > > I know, there is the meta wiki. But I am not sure. Maybe its too meta. And > the discoussion page or a Wikivoyager's Lounge may be too small. Ok... the > set of meta articles can be placed in anywhere the Incubator. But the > remaining stuff? Maybe a separate Namespace for the WMF projects at Meta, > maybe a wiki like our general: > > Any ideas? > Maybe the simplest solution would be to create a meta wikiproject and associated portal? See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Special_interest_groups and an example: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
Stefan Fussan, 16/11/2012 13:27: I know, there is the meta wiki. But I am not sure. Maybe its too meta. And the discoussion page or a Wikivoyager's Lounge may be too small. Too small? Ok... the set of meta articles can be placed in anywhere the Incubator. Meta articles? If it's what I think you mean, incubator is absolutely not the place. But the remaining stuff? Maybe a separate Namespace for the WMF projects at Meta, maybe a wiki like our general: Any ideas? I am going to ask the communities on their traveller's pub site as well. As I already wrote to Wikivoyage-l, I've already imported all the relevant pages from general to meta-wiki: general was an extremely small wiki, so it fits perfectly well in our usual standard of a few subpages with their talk pages, a namespace doesn't seem needed. Nemo Messaggio originale Oggetto: Wikivoyage pages on Meta-Wiki Data: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:25:05 +0100 Mittente: Federico Leva (Nemo) A: Wikivoyage Mailing List I've moved [[Travel Guide]] to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage per talk request. Now https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikivoyage should be the main discussion venue for meta-(cross-language-)issues in Wikivoyage. As Meta-Wiki replaces Wikivoyage general in this role, I've also imported a few dozens pages which seemed still relevant to the new context or still active, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Wikivoyage/ and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikivoyage The most important pages in this moment would seem to be https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage/New_language_versions and all https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikivoyage/Migration/New_policies subpages. I hope this will help speed up the process. Please help cleaning up and updating the imported pages and let me know if you need more of them; I didn't find anything of persistent interest on wikivoyage tech, except the documentation for extensions which seems already superseded by new pages on mediawiki.org. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] A place for project wide discussions
The Wikivoyage project is online now and i want to thank all of you who have been involved with this process. On the former Wikivoyage project we used to have a wiki called general: for discussions that affect all language versions. I wonder why the WMF project dont have something like this. Now I am trying to find a new place where we all can: - discuss new features - discuss about the travel guide's structure - coordinate the work with templates to reduce redundant work - coordinate the work on travel maps - providing a set of English meta articles with rules and regulations that we can hand over the community when a new language version is going to start - providing a list of star articles in all language versions. Contributors to an article will have an easy access to basic information without looking through all wikis. Speaking a foreign language is not necessary to pick basic information (structure of districts, list of sights, addresses, hotels ...) I know, there is the meta wiki. But I am not sure. Maybe its too meta. And the discoussion page or a Wikivoyager's Lounge may be too small. Ok... the set of meta articles can be placed in anywhere the Incubator. But the remaining stuff? Maybe a separate Namespace for the WMF projects at Meta, maybe a wiki like our general: Any ideas? I am going to ask the communities on their traveller's pub site as well. Thanks Stefan aka Fussi ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports. It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve. Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On 16 nov. 2012, at 10:18, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Jan-Bart, > > I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be > subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who > else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that > anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that you > experienced my feedback in such negative way. Hey So no its not obvious that you were stating your own opinion, you often formulate things in such as way that they are not presented as your personal opinion but attempt instead to somehow come across as the "general" opinion. Thats at least how I read them. > > But similarly, I wouldn't want to mistake the opinion of individual FDC > members for the reasoning of the committee as a whole. The comments made on > the talk pages are made by individuals (sometimes not even members), and > not by the committee - that is why I dont want to assume that they are > shared by the committee as a whole. You don't have to :) > > As I understand the process, there was a big preperation - that preperation > is well documented. Also, the way the process has been followed (in all > it's abstractism) has been well documented - this is helpful for > understanding the process better next time of course and valuable. However, > then there is this 4 day meeting. And suddenly, all information available > seems to be missing - unless I'm overlooking something. I know you have > been present at the meeting, so you might read things differently than I > do. But from the arguments given I really have a hard time understanding > what the reasons have been regarding the different decisions. This is not a > simple general hunger for more details (which is there as well, I'll agree > on that), but it is just not being able to understand. > So in the build up to the meeting on the 26th of October there was a lot of public part to the process. The meeting was completed 2 weeks ago and it took two weeks to finalize the recommendations in writing, come to common language etc. This is a 2 week period... how can "all information suddenly be missing"? And again. Getting the FDC to agree on wording etc. is essential, and the FDC decided to agree on the "main" issues per application (and in some case that might prove not to be enough > I do not disagree that the time spent asking questions publicly was worth > while - but this is all (as far as I understand it) before the 4 day > retreat. Before actual committee decisions started. > the reason why the deadline for the recommendations was set for the 15th of November was to allow the FDC members to document their decisions and their reasoning. That takes time (and it not a lack of information, it is taking the time needed to carefully go through everything). This is the information level they decided on, if you feel that more is needed, that is your opinion but please realize that a team working across different time zones only has so much time to work together (and that all these people are volunteers who took time to travel to san francisco to spend four days in a stuffy meeting room...) But I will let them answer for themselves if they feel they want to. > Now I can indeed go to the talk pages and proposals, combine it with some > general comments made by Dariusz and probably come to an 80% understanding > by guessing. However, call me silly but I wouldn't like to rely on the > quality of my own guesswork to understand the committee's decision. > You don't have to , I think that the proposals + Questions asked + staff assesments + FDC comments will get you there in 95% of the cases. But then again, I might be wrong, and in some cases the FDC does need to share more information. As you know we have entered a 7 day period in which the chapters can comment on the recommendations, and we can see if the board requires more information before being able to approve the FDC recommendations (in which case the board will publicly ask for that information and the FDC will publicly share that information (if not limited by some confidentiality) Finally: just to warn you: the FDC has now posted its recommendations, there are seven days during which participants can comment/object... and the board decides by December 15th. While that decision might take place before the 15th of december, it is likely to be two or three weeks away from today THIS IS NOT AN INFORMATION BLACKOUT! It is not a lack of transparency... its just the time we need to read through and discuss and finally vote. Jan-Bart > >> Hey Lodewijk, >> >> So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the >> situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent >> and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and >> YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is >> true. A movement like ours a
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi Jan-Bart, I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that you experienced my feedback in such negative way. But similarly, I wouldn't want to mistake the opinion of individual FDC members for the reasoning of the committee as a whole. The comments made on the talk pages are made by individuals (sometimes not even members), and not by the committee - that is why I dont want to assume that they are shared by the committee as a whole. As I understand the process, there was a big preperation - that preperation is well documented. Also, the way the process has been followed (in all it's abstractism) has been well documented - this is helpful for understanding the process better next time of course and valuable. However, then there is this 4 day meeting. And suddenly, all information available seems to be missing - unless I'm overlooking something. I know you have been present at the meeting, so you might read things differently than I do. But from the arguments given I really have a hard time understanding what the reasons have been regarding the different decisions. This is not a simple general hunger for more details (which is there as well, I'll agree on that), but it is just not being able to understand. I do not disagree that the time spent asking questions publicly was worth while - but this is all (as far as I understand it) before the 4 day retreat. Before actual committee decisions started. Now I can indeed go to the talk pages and proposals, combine it with some general comments made by Dariusz and probably come to an 80% understanding by guessing. However, call me silly but I wouldn't like to rely on the quality of my own guesswork to understand the committee's decision. Christophe: One example is quite clear: if the 120% reference point was used, I would like to see that reflected in the decision arguments. That information is not present in any of the proposals' recommendations and still Dariusz explains that it was a major reason. In the French case I would have appreciated it if they could have explained a little more why they reduced it so much. As I understand from your emails it was in mutual agreement - that would have been a helpful argument. The quality of the proposed projects could have been another. In the case of Argentina I was missing arguments why it was accepted fully. Something along the lines of 'they have good plans that make a good fit with the goals they have in mind and form a stabalizing factor in the region' (making this up as I go) would be an improvement. At the same time it is hard for me to explain what is missing, as I wasn't present at the deliberations, so the best I could do is guess what could have been the reasons. Finally: perhaps I should reiterate this: I do think the FDC did good work at least until their meeting. From that moment onwards, I simply cannot judge it, because I lack the information. I am not assuming good or bad faith, and would be happy to assume all the best. But I'm mainly aiming for the future. This FDC is extremely important in the way our movement functions (or doesn't function) and will probably become even more important. To make their work accepted though, the committee should explain their reasoning well - as a committee. everyting in my personal opinion unless stated otherwise, kind regards, Lodewijk 2012/11/16 Jan-Bart de Vreede > Hey Lodewijk, > > So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the > situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent > and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and > YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is > true. A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do > always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one > detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has > decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was > the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can > indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to > indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion. > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer > you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot > of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common > decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be > discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this > time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on > detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their > application (as will you when
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Dear Rupert, in short: we've been using two main reference points. One was the previous year costs (and trying not to choke by exceeding 120% growth by far), the other was size of the entities. Depending on the feedback from this round, the FDC may decide to change the model of posting the recommendations in the next round. This would, definitely, require working in a different timeframe, which would also help the chapters to be much more responsive about the projects beforehand (especially in this area, we've been occasionally suffering from information lags). After the first round ends, we are planning to reflect on the process and prepare recommendations for the future, both in terms of the projects' format, discussing it, providing replies, making recommendations, and publishing them. best, dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, rupert THURNER wrote: > i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially > how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. > > rupert. > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede > wrote: > > Hey Lodewijk, > > > > So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the > situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent > and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and > YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is > true. A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do > always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one > detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has > decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was > the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can > indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to > indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion. > > > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer > you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot > of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common > decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be > discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this > time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on > detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their > application (as will you when you visit their proposal and talk pages) and > can hopefully move forward with the comments received. Its not the FDC's > job to make all details of an application and their opinion available to > you in a nice summary document because you don't want to read the plans... > The decisions do NOT stand on their own and are part of the FDC portal, > which provides more transparency than you have ever seen in any funds > distribution of this size anywhere in the world I would guess. > > > > And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a > funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major > factors, and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, > but there are never "10s" of factors... > > > > The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if > they don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we > ALL give during this round. > > > > Jan-Bart > > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > > > >> Hi Dariusz, > >> > >> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do > regret > >> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee > >> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget > >> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify > that. > >> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the > >> applicant?), state so. Etc. > >> > >> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have > >> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be > >> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. > >> > >> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the > FDC > >> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're > >> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members > >> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback > for > >> the next round. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Lodewijk > >> > >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> > >>> hi Lodewijk, > >>> > >>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the > >>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one > >>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the > >>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was > justified > >>> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of > >>> developmen
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hey Lodewijk, No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were to be sure I understood correctly what you meant. I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so chapters can improve from on request to the next one. That being said, I'm ok with the level of detail of the current recommendation. I mean, when I read the other chapters recommandation, I understood why the FDC make the recommandation they did. Do you have a specific case where it is not clear? PS: My questions are really that questions, as I'm part of the FDC Advisory Group the answers/feedback do really interest me :) -- Christophe On 15 November 2012 23:56, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > I would like to see that > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains > a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made. > Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be > improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general. > In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1) > they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But > it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit > etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the > opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no > committee decision. > > Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust > that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a > sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the > specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but > I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on > what led to these decisions. > > But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any > further information published by the committee (not: individual members) > that I might be missing? > > Best, > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Christophe Henner > >> What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more >> arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion? >> >> I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as >> the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to >> have those discussions summed up with the recommandation? >> >> Am I understanding your comment correctly, >> -- >> Christophe >> >> >> On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: >> > Hi Dariusz, >> > >> > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do >> regret >> > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee >> > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget >> > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. >> > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the >> > applicant?), state so. Etc. >> > >> > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have >> > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be >> > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. >> > >> > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC >> > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're >> > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members >> > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback >> for >> > the next round. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Lodewijk >> > >> > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >> > >> >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> >> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >> >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >> >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >> >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was >> justified >> >> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >> >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, >> which >> >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >> >> reserves, etc. >> >> >> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >> >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >> >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. >> When >> >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >> >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >> >> >> >> best, >> >> >> >> dj >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Dariusz, >> >>> >> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >> >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that >> to >
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:01:49 + > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, > Round 1, 2012-13 > > i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially > how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. +1 Abbas. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. rupert. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: > Hey Lodewijk, > > So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the > situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent and > lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and YOU > feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is true. > A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do always manage > to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one detail does not > affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has decided to give a > headlines recommendation because they felt that this was the right level of > detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can indicate if they feel that > they have enough information. You are free to indicate that as well, but > please don't present it as the general opinion. > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer you > to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot of > time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common decision > was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be discussed (and > assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this time is better > spend making the deliberations rather than working on detailed reporting). A > specific chapter will know the details of their application (as will you when > you visit their proposal and talk pages) and can hopefully move forward with > the comments received. Its not the FDC's job to make all details of an > application and their opinion available to you in a nice summary document > because you don't want to read the plans… The decisions do NOT stand on their > own and are part of the FDC portal, which provides more transparency than you > have ever seen in any funds distribution of this size anywhere in the world I > would guess. > > And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a > funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major factors, > and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, but there > are never "10s" of factors... > > The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they > don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL give > during this round. > > Jan-Bart > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz, >> >> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret >> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee >> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget >> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. >> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the >> applicant?), state so. Etc. >> >> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have >> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be >> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. >> >> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC >> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're >> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members >> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for >> the next round. >> >> Kind regards, >> Lodewijk >> >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >> >>> hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified >>> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >>> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which >>> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >>> reserves, etc. >>> >>> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >>> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >>> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When >>> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >>> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dj >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk >>> wrote: >>> Hi Dariusz, it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that informatio
