Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Dear Lodewijk, thank you! I cannot promise this level of detail when we have many more participants in Round 1 next year (if the FDC process continues), but we'll do our best to aim for detailed feedback. Encouragement from the community means a lot to us, and I appreciate it. best, Dariusz Jemielniak, pundit On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Thanks for the much more detailed reasoning and feedback! This actually gives a good insight why decisions were taken as they were and a major improvement compared to previous rounds. Lodewijk 2014-05-25 0:12 GMT+02:00 Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com: Hello everyone, I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a part of this process so far. Regards Ali Haidar Khan On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
After reading the report I really hope that the FDC continues prospering and growing. There are very insightful recommendations to be found there and I hope they are put into practice. I also think that this kind of report reinforces and shows in full splendor the spirit of community participation and co-governance that many of us we feel identified with. Thanks for having shown how a good report should look like. Micru On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.plwrote: Dear Lodewijk, thank you! I cannot promise this level of detail when we have many more participants in Round 1 next year (if the FDC process continues), but we'll do our best to aim for detailed feedback. Encouragement from the community means a lot to us, and I appreciate it. best, Dariusz Jemielniak, pundit On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Thanks for the much more detailed reasoning and feedback! This actually gives a good insight why decisions were taken as they were and a major improvement compared to previous rounds. Lodewijk 2014-05-25 0:12 GMT+02:00 Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com: Hello everyone, I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a part of this process so far. Regards Ali Haidar Khan On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Thanks for the much more detailed reasoning and feedback! This actually gives a good insight why decisions were taken as they were and a major improvement compared to previous rounds. Lodewijk 2014-05-25 0:12 GMT+02:00 Tonmoy Khan tonmoy...@gmail.com: Hello everyone, I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a part of this process so far. Regards Ali Haidar Khan On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the
[Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''. * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved. * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called appeals): * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the FDC process (e.g. in this instance, from start '''1 April 2014'''). * The complaint should be submitted on wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] * The ombudsperson will receive and publicly document the complaint, and investigate the complaint, as needed. On behalf of the FDC, pundit Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals [4]
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hi Dariusz ( Everyone) On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory Group. Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions on the different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an organisation! Thank you, Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''. * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved. * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called appeals): * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
+1 I want to join Jat-Bart and thanks the FDC for the great work they did again. I'm also happy to see improvement in the process and to see that this round the FDC published more detailed feedback of their recommendations. I found their feedback of the WMF proposal as a very mature and profound, and highlight some of us a very interesting issues to look for, and I know that wasn't been so easy to do so. I also want to congratulate WMFR for being the first chapter over the lasts 2 rounds to be recommended to be fully funded, although they requested 50% higher allocation from the last year allocation. WMFR proposal is indeed very professional and interesting one which posed a high bar for everyone on the next rounds. Well done WMFR! Itzik WMIL On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi Dariusz ( Everyone) On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others in the coming days as we convene with the FDC Advisory Group. Also thanks to all those who have participated in the public discussions on the different proposals, it is what makes us truly unique as an organisation! Thank you, Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Wikimedia Board of Trustees On 24 May 2014, at 15:51, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if the recommendations are published before the deadline for the recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose. [4] * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking organization. * Formal appeals must be filed within seven
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendation round 2 announced
Hello everyone, I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a part of this process so far. Regards Ali Haidar Khan On May 24, 2014 9:06 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we hope to make your work easier as well. Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations. Lila On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Samuel Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future. I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Hello friends, The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta [2]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July 2014. For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals. The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We sincerely appreciate them all for this work. For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. These are further explained below: Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
