subject:"Re\: \[Wikimedia\-l\] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up"

hi Gerard,

you seem to mix two things: one is the FDC, the other is WMF and its funds
processing practices. I can only speak for my part in the FDC (but  I
generally agree that funding scheme and policies require thinking over, and
I definitely do not think there should be a "second class citizenship"
approach).

I am confident that none of the FDC members wanted to "punish" WMDE.
However, we did have very serious concerns about governance, frugality,
effectiveness of the programs. Is it your view that we should not reduce
our recommendations based on these in any case, when staff or activities
reductions would follow?

Similarly, no-one is "punishing" the Dutch chapter. The FDC would only like
to encourage more efforts in fundraising (and often just making an effort
will be fine, results may be a bit contingent, as we all know), just so
that we have more diversification of sources. This is valuable for our
movement as a whole, as we should not assume that the current model of
funding will certainly stay with us forever (many other organizations,
including F/L/OSS ones, face trouble in global fundraising; if there are
possibilities to get some local support, it is better to check them when
the times are still good).

Thomas:

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Goldammer  wrote:

> But you wanted a comment on the FDC. The only thing I can say is: To base
> such a decision on things like "the FDC feels" and "to appear" and "it is
> likely" (all quotes from their text within a single paragraph) makes me
> think that they get very poor information and instead of trying to get it
> richer (for example by talking to *all* relevant people), they make a very
> poor decision out of it.
>

I am puzzled that you assume that we based our recommendations on poor
information just because of polite wording. Not making definitive, absolute
statements about reality does not indicate our uncertainty about data. In
previous rounds whenever we felt the need to get more data, we reached out
to get it (and sometimes even received it from chapters in time).

However, I have insist that it should be primarily the responsibility of
the people preparing projects to make them as detailed as needed. In this
respect, I have to really commend and appreciate many of the projects in
this round - as a volunteer myself, I really can recognize the amount of
work needed to prepare detailed budgets and projects. This is particularly
impressive when compared to projects developed by large, "professional"
chapters, which at least in theory should be light years ahead in terms of
detail and accuracy.

best,

dariusz "pundit"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:

> Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought
> they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
> what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need
> to change in order to bid more successfully.
>

I am not entirely sure about this. My concern is essentially that it is
unclear to me how the FDC determines the extent of the cuts it makes and
which item(s) of the budget get(s) cut by what amount of money. For
instance, when to Committee suggests to reduce the allocation to WMDE by
EUR 360,000 vis-à-vis what they requested (-30%), it is not clear to me how
the Committee arrived at that amount of money.

There are plenty of possibilities, after all: It could be that they looked
at individual items in the budget and found that the chapter overspends on
these (in which case the Committee must have some idea of the amount of
money they would find justifiable); it could be that the Committee members
were generally angry about the alleged poor quality of the proposal and
made an across-the-board cut; or it could be a combination of the two. But
either way, while the FDC -- righly -- demands from chapters to present
their budgets at a high level of detail (particularly if high sums are
involved), the same, I would say, also applies to the FDC itself. An
uninvolved third party should be able to see why you cut WMDE's budget by
EUR 360,000 rather than by 150,000 or 550,000. I'm not seeing this. (Btw,
I'm just using WMDE as an example because of the large amount of money
involved; I think the issue I'm referring to applies to other proposals as
well.)

Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Craig Franklin

On 23 November 2014 at 22:30, pajz  wrote:

> On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought
> > they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly
> > what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need
> > to change in order to bid more successfully.
> >
>
> I am not entirely sure about this. My concern is essentially that it is
> unclear to me how the FDC determines the extent of the cuts it makes and
> which item(s) of the budget get(s) cut by what amount of money. For
> instance, when to Committee suggests to reduce the allocation to WMDE by
> EUR 360,000 vis-à-vis what they requested (-30%), it is not clear to me how
> the Committee arrived at that amount of money.
>

Just noting here that I think this is an excellent point.  It's not
entirely clear in some cases why the allocation has been cut by a specific
amount.  I can appreciate that the FDC has good reasons for not giving an
entity what it has asked for, but at the same time it should be able to
explain clearly how they arrived at the reduced figure.

The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the
rationale is not clear,  is that entities may start to inflate their
requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the
FDC, thus leaving them with the figure that they *really *want.  If the
rationale is clearly explained, this will probably be less of a factor.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


Gerard Meijssen, 23/11/2014 08:27:

I am really surprised how little attention this is getting.


It seems to me that there isn't much to say; I see political decisions, 
they are what they are. One of them is "detail detail detail"; while WMF 
can just throw a slogan on paper and get millions for it. Another is 
that they know how to e.g. select/replace an ED, or even write bylaws 
(!), better than the bodies legally entrusted with those duties.


Finally, I see hostility towards attempts at technological 
decentralisation (e.g. Kiwix). But here I hope I'm mistaken.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Craig, Patrik,

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Craig Franklin 
 wrote:

>
> The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the
> rationale is not clear,  is that entities may start to inflate their
> requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the
> FDC, thus leaving them with the figure that they *really *want.  If the
> rationale is clearly explained, this will probably be less of a factor.
>
>
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We
would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be
funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds. In the case of WMDE, I
think we did make it abundantly clear that Wikidata is an excellent project
that should receive more funding. It would also be really valuable if the
Board considered multi-year funding for this particular project separately.

While we strive to be as detailed as possible in our recommendations, I
hope it is understandable that there is a difference in detail of reasoning
for a budget requested on the one hand, and for a recommended amount on the
other. For starters, as a committee, we may differ initially in recommended
allocations - it is the end result that is a consensus we worked out,
basing on different rationales. We have used many approaches and lenses to
see this (expense-side, project-side, staff-side, diversification of other
funding-side, etc.), but ultimately, our belief was that WMDE may need to
reflect on their role in the movement and how it spends the movement's
resources. Also, our recommendation was based on the quality of proposals
(judged comparatively, taking the amounts into account). Finally, we did
have to reflect on the fact that the total amounts of requests exceeded our
overall budget (but this consideration was not driving our decisionmaking,
we in fact were discussing a possibility of recommending budget increase,
if all projects were outstanding).

Nemo: absolutely no hostility meant towards technological decentralization!
Speaking only for myself, I believe that the more our movement is relying
on various resources (including technologies) the better.

best,

dariusz "pundit"

-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz,

On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We
> would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be
> funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
>

While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement
to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently
why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of
it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any
means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions
on the use of allocated funds.

My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a
list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC
members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing
is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and
reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a
discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC
should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is
sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be
made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about
governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to
jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't
generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel
comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think
that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by
that amount."

Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of
accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts
make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give
six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested,
without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the
chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third
argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five
others!".

Best wishes,
Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

hi,

I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily
what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.

Please, observe that we did recommend Wikidata to be fully sustained.

Also, remember, that all appeals are not going to the FDC at all - we will
not have ANY opportunity to argue one way or another in case of all
appeals. The Board will consider them, and will base not only on our
recommendations, but also on the notes from confidential proceedings of the
FDC committee (two Board members are non-voting observers). There is also
an ombudsperson overseeing the whole process formally.

In any case, I understand that it would be more desirable to see every
dollar cut connected to one item of our feedback. I am not certain, though,
if we will be able to do so in the future in all cases (but we may try,
when possible).

best,

dariusz "pundit"

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, pajz  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We
>> would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be
>> funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
>>
>
> While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement
> to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently
> why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of
> it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any
> means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions
> on the use of allocated funds.
>
> My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a
> list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC
> members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing
> is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and
> reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a
> discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC
> should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is
> sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be
> made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about
> governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to
> jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't
> generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel
> comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think
> that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by
> that amount."
>
> Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of
> accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts
> make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give
> six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested,
> without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the
> chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third
> argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five
> others!".
>
> Best wishes,
> Patrik
>

-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Anders Wennersten

I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment

The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
*Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013*
*1 October 2014*

All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720
Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301

WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not
demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely
to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs.
WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support
program, which does not have commensurate impact.

Anders

pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:

Hi Dariusz,

On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We
would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be
funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.

While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement
to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently
why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of
it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any
means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions
on the use of allocated funds.

My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a
list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC
members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing
is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and
reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a
discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC
should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is
sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be
made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about
governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to
jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't
generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel
comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think
that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by
that amount."

Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of
accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts
make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give
six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested,
without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the
chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third
argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five
others!".

Best wishes,
Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Ilario Valdelli


It's important to know the timeline.

Probably paying someone to be a member of the wikipedian community would 
produce more *statistical impact* in short time but less *real impact* 
in longtime.


The problem is to know if the aim is to have numbers or to have a real 
and lontime impact.


regards

On 23.11.2014 14:59, Anders Wennersten wrote:

I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment 




The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
*Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 
October 2013* *1 October 2014*

All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720
Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301

WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not 
demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem 
likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs.
WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support 
program, which does not have commensurate impact.


Anders






--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread rupert THURNER

Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by
bots. What is the link for this?

Rupert
 On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten" 
wrote:

> I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
> 2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment
>
>
> The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> *Editors*   *Country*   *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012**1
> October 2013* *1 October 2014*
> All editors Deutschland German  14,740  13,484  12,720
> Active (5+/mo)  5,290   4,661   4,301
>
> WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not
> demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to
> generate significant future impact commensurate with costs.
> WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support
> program, which does not have commensurate impact.
>
> Anders
>
>
> pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:
>
>> Hi Dariusz,
>>
>> On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly.
>>> We
>>> would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to
>>> be
>>> funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
>>>
>>>  While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a
>> requirement
>> to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently
>> why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of
>> it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any
>> means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions
>> on the use of allocated funds.
>>
>> My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a
>> list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC
>> members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's
>> missing
>> is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight
>> and
>> reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice
>> a
>> discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC
>> should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is
>> sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should
>> be
>> made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about
>> governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to
>> jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't
>> generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel
>> comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think
>> that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount
>> by
>> that amount."
>>
>> Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of
>> accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts
>> make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you
>> give
>> six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested,
>> without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the
>> chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third
>> argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five
>> others!".
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Patrik
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz,

thanks for the quick response.

On 23 November 2014 at 14:52, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
> apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
> lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily
> what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
>

I'll comment on that at the end of my email.

> Please, observe that we did recommend Wikidata to be fully sustained.
>

Just to be clear -- I am not affiliated with WMDE. I've kept out of
chapter-related issues since I started contributing to the Wikimedia
projects in 2007, and I do not feel a need to change that. So when I'm
exemplifying a point here with the German chapter's proposal, that is not
due to my desire to argue their case, but I'm weighing in because I truly
believe that the process itself should be reflected. The fact that you
recommend to secure funding for Wikidata is therefore of relevance to the
German chapter, but not really something that matters to the case I'm
arguing.

Also, remember, that all appeals are not going to the FDC at all - we will
> not have ANY opportunity to argue one way or another in case of all
> appeals. The Board will consider them, and will base not only on our
> recommendations, but also on the notes from confidential proceedings of the
> FDC committee (two Board members are non-voting observers). There is also
> an ombudsperson overseeing the whole process formally.
>

Ok. What I mean is that you can't make a substantiated complaint about the
FDC's allocation if the Committee doesn't indicate how it arrived at that
figure.

In any case, I understand that it would be more desirable to see every
> dollar cut connected to one item of our feedback. I am not certain, though,
> if we will be able to do so in the future in all cases (but we may try,
> when possible).
>

I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual
aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.

Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread MZMcBride

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>I am really surprised how little attention this is getting.

Don't worry, I'm paying attention.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=10611792#About_the_FDC

When I look at the composition of the Funds Dissemination Committee, it's
difficult for me to get too upset. It's a fairly diverse group of
Wikimedians that I respect and trust. The recommendations themselves seem
considered and measured (punintentional). Based on my limited
observations, the FDC is doing an acceptable and thankless job.

I found the comparison chart provided in this report somewhat lacking, so
I created my own that adds a few columns:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=10618176#Comparison

Wikimedia Deutschland requested more money ($1,575,600) than any other
requesting entity (the next highest was Wikimedia UK's request of
$672,381). That's a pretty big difference.

Wikimedia Deutschland was not really exceptional in seeing a large
difference between amount requested and amount recommended: DE -->
-30.185%, CH --> -30.147%, UK --> -22.663%, etc.

And the report was pretty explicit about the reason for Wikimedia
Deutschland receiving less money:


The FDC is very concerned that there is so little detail in the proposal
about both budget and programs for an organization of this size,
especially when compared to other proposals. With this recommendation to
cut their allocation, it is the sincere hope of the FDC that significant
concerns around the lack of focus in activities and large expenses for
many of Wikimedia Deutschland’s programs will be recognised and acted upon.

[...]

Considering Wikimedia Deutschland’s size and budget, the lack of details
and depth in this proposal and budget, compounded by vagueness, is a
serious concern and is simply not acceptable. The FDC does not find a
focused rationale behind its budget, which is serious considering that
Wikimedia Deutschland is making the largest APG funding request overall
and it is requesting more than 25% of the total funds available. The costs
of each program are not sufficiently detailed, making it hard to determine
if amounts allocated for each program are reasonable or not. From the
information available, the FDC considers administration costs included in
this proposal to be extremely and unusually high, especially those related
to the Board.


I'm not sure how the FDC could have been any clearer here.

A smart response from Wikimedia Deutschland would be "we understand we
fell short and we'll seek to address these issues for the next round."
Becoming combative and talking about how the Wikimedia movement is too
U.S. and Europe-centric (which is a funny view considering how the UK, CH,
DE, and NL chapters fared in this round of funding...) is neither helpful
nor productive, in my opinion.

And while centralized fundraising certainly creates unusual political and
power dynamics, it's vastly preferable to the former practice of simply
having a few small (in size) chapters get an excessively high amount of
money that they didn't have the resources to properly manage or allocate.
That was the past reality and we are improving and I'm grateful for that.

We're increasing funds dissemination accountability and we're being more
financially prudent with donor resources. What, exactly, is upsetting?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Cristian Consonni

Hi,

apologies for the lengthy answer.

2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> I have a few questions, observations. When I read the arguments for cutting
> the request of the German chapter, I get the impression that the Germans
> are punished.

Can you please elaborate on where you get this feeling from, Gerard?

2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> I also find no considerations to the consequences of NOT
> providing the requested funding.

Possible scenarios have been discussed, the final decision is, of
course, in the hands of the upcoming WMDE's board. I think that the
recommendation given highlights some strong and some week points to
work on (and I think this is the point of the recommendation).

2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> When I read about the Dutch request, they are praised for being
prudent and careful planners but they are punished for not being actively
involved in fundraising.

On one hand the need of diversifying the sources of funding is for
sure something that the FDC want to push organisations on, I want this
to be as clear as possible on this point.
I can say that all FDC members are aware that this message has not
been given clearly in the past and that fundraising is a difficult
endeavor where capacity needs to be built and result can not expected
to be immediate.
The main point is that "diversification of funds and resources
mitigate risks and maintain sustainability, and also allow
organizations to build meaningful local partnerships and shared
ownership around goals."

On the other hand we considered the fact that WMNL has a significant
amount of reserves, while some reserves are definitely a good thing,
we have to consider the fact that this money are, in some sense,
frozen in their use. We can not ignore this fact. Also remember the
the medium size of IEG is 7500 $[1] (but I recalled an even lower
figure).

> The WIkimedia Foundation deliberately excluded the chapters from the
> fundraising efforts.

As Dariusz noted, the so-called "payment processing" from the websites
does not necessarily equate fundraising /tout court/.

> Enough comments have been made about this recently; it
> is obvious to many that the WMF seems not to care too much about what funds
> are raised outside the USA.

I disagree on this, but I may add that if this would be the case it
would be one more reason to develop a local fundraising strategy.

> The process of handing out gifts makes beggars of the chapters.

I disagree. Basically *all* the non-profit organisations in the world
raise funds in a number of ways, including applying for grants to
different organisations (at a local, national and international
level), and I can assure you (through personal experience, i.e.
projects done with Wikimedia Italia) that for doing such a thing you
are required to present a (project) proposal, to prepare reports and
basically do all the steps that are part of the FDC process.

> They have
> to comply with the vagaries of what committee members think at a given
> time.

This is a risk associated with any fundraising activity other then
having a very large number of direct small donors.
I can also point out that you have to face the vagaries of the Board,
too ("6. We should ensure the diversification of funding for our
movement, and not rely solely on movement resources through our annual
fundraiser.")[2].

In the recommendation for Wikimedia Foundation in May, the FDC asked
for the start of the new strategic process. The Wikimedia Foundation
as an organisation needs its own strategy, I do not know at the moment
if this will be called "the Wikimedia movement strategy" or not. I do
not know at the moment if this two strategies are better being one or
not. The point is, whatever the Wikimedia Foundation's strategy will
be this will affect the whole movement with a magnitude much greater
than the strategy of every single other Wikimedia entity or group.

One point of this is: make sure that WMF strategy is sensible for what
you as a chapter want to do, or make sure that we have a movement
strategy we agree on. The other point is: "WMF strategy will affect
all of us, whether we like it or not" (cit. Delphine, I hope you don't
mind me quoting this in public), so participate in the WMF strategy
process when the time comes.

> In my opinion by making chapters second class citizens, the WMF will remain
> USA and English centred. That does not help our goal of "sharing in the sum
> of all available knowledge".

I don't think chapters are second class citizens and I think that all
committee members are aware of the fact that "sharing in the sum of
all available knowledge" goes beyond English (for 7 out of 9 members
English is not the native/primary language) and goes beyond Wikipedia,
this even goes beyond online since many of the very cool projects the
chapters do need a significant offline activity.

> PS there are more chapters where I am not happy about the granting of gifts
> either.

(as in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-23 13:50 GMT+01:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> Finally, I see hostility towards attempts at technological decentralisation
> (e.g. Kiwix). But here I hope I'm mistaken.

You are:
«Wikimedia CH has been very successful in offline activities/Kiwix,
and is effectively developing tools for broader activities extending
beyond their community, for example in GLAM. It is creating tools and
content that can have impact on a global scale. The offline work done
by the chapter is a very good example of collaboration and
cross-coordination among different movement groups for creation of a
universal tool and its implementation (e.g, the work with Wikimedia
South Africa to implement offline tools).»

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Anders Wennersten



rupert THURNER skrev den 2014-11-23 15:19:

Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by
bots. What is the link for this?

Rupert
*Editors* 	*Country* 	*Wikipedia* 	*1 October 2012* 	*1 October 2013* 
*1 October 2014*

All editors Sweden  Swedish 2,289   2,289   2,227
Active (5+/mo)  701 647 747


so somewhat down a year ago and up this autumn. And without the 
activities from WMSE I estimate we would have seen a decline of 10-15%. 
Glam initiatives and education support programs from WMSE does not only 
bring in new editors and edits but also boost the morale of the oldies 
(as also good reports in media (thx WMSE) and the botgeneration does)


Anders





  On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten" 
wrote:


I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment


The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
*Editors*   *Country*   *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012**1
October 2013* *1 October 2014*
All editors Deutschland German  14,740  13,484  12,720
Active (5+/mo)  5,290   4,661   4,301

WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not
demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to
generate significant future impact commensurate with costs.
WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support
program, which does not have commensurate impact.

Anders


pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:


Hi Dariusz,

On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

  the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly.

We
would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to
be
funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.

  While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a

requirement
to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently
why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of
it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any
means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions
on the use of allocated funds.

My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a
list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC
members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's
missing
is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight
and
reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice
a
discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC
should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is
sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should
be
made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about
governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to
jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't
generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel
comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think
that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount
by
that amount."

Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of
accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts
make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you
give
six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested,
without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the
chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third
argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five
others!".

Best wishes,
Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

>
>
> I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
> Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
> practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual
> aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
>
>
>
Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and
evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional
information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then
we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or
longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE
proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into
discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically
would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the
results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.).
After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a
cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat
this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to
express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed
amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of
what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be
need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know
that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain
allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high
eventually.

dariusz "pundit"
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-23 14:52 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by
> apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of
> lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily
> what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.

Pajz, in addition to what Dariusz said please also note that, for
example in case of Wikimedia Serbia that presented a very detailed
budget this was exactly what was done (but I would rather consider
this to be an exception, see below).

In general, I would like to point out that single-line cuts in budgets
pose other kinds of problems, e.g. difficulty to evaluate the precise
amount taking in consideration the context (then risking to be forced
to say either "keep this" or "reject"), and also the autonomy of the
organisation (if you transform a recommendation in list of "this yes"
and "that other no" then what remains to be decided by the chapter?).

In my view, the role of the FDC is to evaluate the general capacity of
an organisation in organizing projects, deliver what planned, measure
the outputs and the outcomes, adjust its activities based on the
results.

Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision
to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual
proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then
go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary
implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's
Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is roughly
equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project,
which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view on
the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in
unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We
felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to 10
other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.

I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just have
doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design fosters
budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the
actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's
basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is
basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a
substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but
never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the
process (which, of course, is what matters).

Patrik

On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> >
> >
> > I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
> > Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
> > practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual
> > aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
> >
> >
> >
> Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and
> evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional
> information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then
> we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or
> longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE
> proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into
> discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically
> would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the
> results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.).
> After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a
> cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat
> this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to
> express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed
> amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of
> what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be
> need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know
> that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain
> allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high
> eventually.
>
> dariusz "pundit"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final
allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the
FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is
unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and
what needs to be shut down.

So I believe that the model of decision-making is directly related to the
fact that chapters receive unrestricted funding anyway. There are many
layers of accountability, but indeed a bystander cannot exactly pit each
dollar cut to a particular argument - we only give reasonably detailed
feedback to organizations as a whole, since the total allocation is, again,
unrestricted.

best,

dj "pundit"

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, pajz  wrote:

> Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision
> to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual
> proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then
> go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary
> implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's
> Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is roughly
> equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project,
> which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view on
> the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in
> unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We
> felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to 10
> other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.
>
> I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just have
> doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design fosters
> budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the
> actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's
> basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is
> basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a
> substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but
> never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the
> process (which, of course, is what matters).
>
> Patrik
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
>> > Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
>> > practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual
>> > aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and
>> evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional
>> information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations.
>> Then
>> we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more
>> or
>> longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE
>> proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into
>> discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically
>> would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the
>> results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.).
>> After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a
>> cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat
>> this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to
>> express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed
>> amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations
>> of
>> what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be
>> need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know
>> that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain
>> allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high
>> eventually.
>>
>> dariusz "pundit"
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>


-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Anders,

On 23 November 2014 at 14:59, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> *Editors*   *Country*   *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012**1
> October 2013* *1 October 2014*
> All editors Deutschland German  14,740  13,484  12,720
> Active (5+/mo)  5,290   4,661   4,301
>

while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have
not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a
preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time
series of the number of editors and say "good trend -> congrats, chapter" /
"bad trend -> oh, guess the chapter did a bad job". What tells you that if
a project is experiencing a 10% decline of its editor base from year 1 to
year 2 that it wouldn't have lost 20% without the chapter's activities?

(I did not have the impression though that this is what FDC staff meant
with "has not demonstrated past impact".)

Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Dariusz,

On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> All in all, this is
> unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
> advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and
> what needs to be shut down.
>

sure, I understand this, but I'm sure that you and the other members are
making such demands anyway (internally); my suggestion is to make that a
part of the deliberation process of the entire committee, and then put a
price tag to individual concerns. The chapter can still make its own
decisions about how to spend their money, but at least it facilitates both
the affected chapter's and the public's understanding of what's going on.

One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters
as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC
process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC
or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it
sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if
one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives
the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk
of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
grants programs of the WMF, right?

Cheers,
Patrik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz  wrote:

>
> One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
> wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters
> as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC
> process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC
> or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it
> sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if
> one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives
> the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk
> of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
> it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
> other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
> funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
> grants programs of the WMF, right?
>
> I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme per
se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target
best projects and guarantee their  undisturbed financing. This can
definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is
precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this
to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure),
we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we
know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be
because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small,
mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow
them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven
stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although
the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of
a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be
scratched.

best,

dariusz "pundit"

best,

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Juergen Fenn

2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :

> The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community

I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
the bay area, and it has not been played since September.

Regards,
Jürgen.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread svetlana

On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 10:55, Juergen Fenn wrote:
> 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
> 
> > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> 
> I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
> the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
> Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
> have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
> nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
> community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
> the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
> 
> Regards,
> Jürgen.

Were that the case, I'd've expected WM-DE to dissolve in protest. That it 
exists suggests that things would continue to work the same way - with the 
Chapter supporting outreach and similar activities - for another while.

--
svetlana

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hoi,
Ever heard of "cherry picking" and of independent organisations ? If I were
to be dependent on this process I would hate it SOOO much.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 23 November 2014 at 23:30, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz  wrote:
>
> >
> > One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
> > wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other
> chapters
> > as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the
> FDC
> > process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the
> FDC
> > or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it
> > sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously
> if
> > one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this
> gives
> > the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk
> > of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
> > it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
> > other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
> > funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
> > grants programs of the WMF, right?
> >
> > I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme
> per
> se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target
> best projects and guarantee their  undisturbed financing. This can
> definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is
> precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this
> to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure),
> we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we
> know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be
> because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small,
> mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow
> them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven
> stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although
> the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of
> a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be
> scratched.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
> best,
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hoi,
This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed
without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
Thanks,
 GerardM

move on

On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn 
wrote:

> 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
>
> > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
>
> I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
> the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
> Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
> have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
> nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
> community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
> the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
>
> Regards,
> Jürgen.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Jens Best

Dear Gerald,

you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move
forward.

And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was
understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.

Best regards

Jens Best
Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" :

> Hoi,
> This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed
> without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> move on
>
> On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn 
> wrote:
>
> > 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
> >
> > > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> >
> > I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> > for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
> > the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
> > Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
> > have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
> > nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
> > community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
> > the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jürgen.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hoi,
Well it is mightely well hidden. Or in other words you are preaching to
your choir but outside the immediate sphere of influence it is not heard
far from it, I am really upset by what happened and now the fall out that
was waiting to happen.

Propaganda.. REALLY ? I am my own man and at that I am a fan of the German
chapter ie what it DOES.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 24 November 2014 at 07:25, Jens Best  wrote:

> Dear Gerald,
>
> you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move
> forward.
>
> And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was
> understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
>
> Best regards
>
> Jens Best
> Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" :
>
> > Hoi,
> > This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed
> > without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > move on
> >
> > On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn <
> schneeschme...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten  >:
> > >
> > > > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> > >
> > > I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> > > for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
> > > the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
> > > Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
> > > have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
> > > nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
> > > community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
> > > the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jürgen.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Jens Best

Well,

you maybe true with the fact that some of it is "hidden", but if you have
to start clearing the mess you inherited for good not every necessary
action you undertake is immediately seen. True on that. Sustainable
Structure and real impact is a little bit more complicated to establish and
to nourish than increasing money numbers and collecting thousands of zombie
members. So, yes, the real work starts now.

best regards

Jens Best

2014-11-24 7:34 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> Well it is mightely well hidden. Or in other words you are preaching to
> your choir but outside the immediate sphere of influence it is not heard
> far from it, I am really upset by what happened and now the fall out that
> was waiting to happen.
>
> Propaganda.. REALLY ? I am my own man and at that I am a fan of the German
> chapter ie what it DOES.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 24 November 2014 at 07:25, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Dear Gerald,
> >
> > you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move
> > forward.
> >
> > And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was
> > understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jens Best
> > Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen"  >:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being
> dismissed
> > > without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > move on
> > >
> > > On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn <
> > schneeschme...@googlemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten <
> m...@anderswennersten.se
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
> > > >
> > > > I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
> > > > for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
> > > > the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
> > > > Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
> > > > have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
> > > > nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
> > > > community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
> > > > the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Jürgen.
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best @wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-23 Thread Anders Wennersten



Gerard Meijssen skrev den 2014-11-24 07:18:

Hoi,
This is not at all what is considered.


I wonder where you source for this comes from. I has been a member of 
FDC even if not any longer. The Board stated last December that 
investment in chapter must show clearer impact.   Lila did just a few 
week issued a statement on the importance that impact can be proven in 
hard figures


WMDE have been acting as a chapter longer than any other and run a lot 
of programs, like educating enormous amount of people and having a huge 
staff of community support people. To then show the biggest decline of 
editors is surely a critical thing in the evaluation of their proposal. 
And the decline  could be seen even before the issue of superprotect 
right. and also worse then can be seen in Austria, also working on dewp.




Anders








It is about Pavel being dismissed
without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
Thanks,
  GerardM

move on

On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn 
wrote:


2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :


The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community

I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
the bay area, and it has not been played since September.

Regards,
Jürgen.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hoi,
Sorry if I am not clear. My understanding of the mail I replied to was the
point that the Germans were their usual self in their reaction to the
Visual Editor and were punished for that. THIS is in my opinion not the
case. The argument was about dismissing Pavel in such a way that it cost
tons of money and without any noticable effect..

The fact that the German Wikipedia is not performing well has more to do
with the conservatism of the Wikipedia community and is not attributable to
the chapter. What is happening in Sweden is something that is known to me
but I do not know about any research or other papers that explain what it
is exactly what is happening there.. Such papers would help chip away at
the archaic stance of many German Wikipedians. IMHO they are wrong in many
ways but having papers explaining what it is EXACTLY what they have right
and wrong would be really valuable.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 24 November 2014 at 07:59, Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

>
> Gerard Meijssen skrev den 2014-11-24 07:18:
>
>> Hoi,
>> This is not at all what is considered.
>>
>
> I wonder where you source for this comes from. I has been a member of FDC
> even if not any longer. The Board stated last December that investment in
> chapter must show clearer impact.   Lila did just a few week issued a
> statement on the importance that impact can be proven in hard figures
>
> WMDE have been acting as a chapter longer than any other and run a lot of
> programs, like educating enormous amount of people and having a huge staff
> of community support people. To then show the biggest decline of editors is
> surely a critical thing in the evaluation of their proposal. And the
> decline  could be seen even before the issue of superprotect right. and
> also worse then can be seen in Austria, also working on dewp.
>
>
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  It is about Pavel being dismissed
>> without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> move on
>>
>> On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn > >
>> wrote:
>>
>>  2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten :
>>>
>>>  The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community

>>> I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible
>>> for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to
>>> the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and
>>> Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us
>>> have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is
>>> nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking
>>> community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in
>>> the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jürgen.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>>
>>>  ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

I would really introduce some kind of *coherence* in any statement. I am
reading long emails (really long) reporting a long inside discussion but a
lot of incoherence.

Statement: The sources should be diversified because this will reduce the
risk.

A risk management is a consequence of a risk evaluation. It's not possible
to put some "words" all together to give a coherent answer.
What is the real risk you would reduce? What is the result of the risk
evaluation.

Risk evaluation: I suppose that you would reduce the risk to don't have a
fundraising able to cover all costs. Is not it?

In this case the biggest risk is inside Wikimedia Foundation, because if
the WMF will not collect sufficient funds, they can generate a big risk
because they don't diversify. Basically there may be a risk but the
solution of the risk is not well addressed.

The solution to diversify to reduce the risks is not well addressed because
the comments addressed to the chapters should be addressed before to WMF
multiplied per 100.

If you don't address this request to WMF probably the statement of "risk
reduction" is incoherent and, like this, it's wrong.

Best regards

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

>
>
> 2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> > I also find no considerations to the consequences of NOT
> > providing the requested funding.
>
> Possible scenarios have been discussed, the final decision is, of
> course, in the hands of the upcoming WMDE's board. I think that the
> recommendation given highlights some strong and some week points to
> work on (and I think this is the point of the recommendation).
>
> 2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> > When I read about the Dutch request, they are praised for being
> prudent and careful planners but they are punished for not being actively
> involved in fundraising.
>
> On one hand the need of diversifying the sources of funding is for
> sure something that the FDC want to push organisations on, I want this
> to be as clear as possible on this point.
> I can say that all FDC members are aware that this message has not
> been given clearly in the past and that fundraising is a difficult
> endeavor where capacity needs to be built and result can not expected
> to be immediate.
> The main point is that "diversification of funds and resources
> mitigate risks and maintain sustainability, and also allow
> organizations to build meaningful local partnerships and shared
> ownership around goals."
>
>
>

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli 
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli 
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli 
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Ok, but if the request is to diversify the incoming, I suppose that the
evaluation of the chapters *must change*.

If the chapters have to find funds because there is no sufficient money to
fund their programs (and not a single project), I suppose that the main
workload of the chapters would be to find funds and not to do projects.

If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the
current measures are inconsistent.

I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters
have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off the
time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.

Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.

I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was
said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be payment
processors.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

>
> In my view, the role of the FDC is to evaluate the general capacity of
> an organisation in organizing projects, deliver what planned, measure
> the outputs and the outcomes, adjust its activities based on the
> results.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli 
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli 
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli 
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

In my opinion you are under-evaluating the impact of your so-called
"advices".

It's sufficient to compare the leaving of employees in chapters staff after
and before these advices.

Regards

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final
> allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the
> FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is
> unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
> advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and
> what needs to be shut down.
>
> So I believe that the model of decision-making is directly related to the
> fact that chapters receive unrestricted funding anyway. There are many
> layers of accountability, but indeed a bystander cannot exactly pit each
> dollar cut to a particular argument - we only give reasonably detailed
> feedback to organizations as a whole, since the total allocation is, again,
> unrestricted.
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, pajz  wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision
> > to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual
> > proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and
> then
> > go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary
> > implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's
> > Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is
> roughly
> > equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project,
> > which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view
> on
> > the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in
> > unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We
> > felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to
> 10
> > other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.
> >
> > I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just
> have
> > doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design
> fosters
> > budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the
> > actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's
> > basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is
> > basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a
> > substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but
> > never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the
> > process (which, of course, is what matters).
> >
> > Patrik
> >
> > On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the
> >> > Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean,
> >> > practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss
> indiviual
> >> > aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and
> >> evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional
> >> information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations.
> >> Then
> >> we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more
> >> or
> >> longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE
> >> proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into
> >> discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically
> >> would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see
> the
> >> results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation,
> etc.).
> >> After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a
> >> cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We
> repeat
> >> this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to
> >> express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed
> >> amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations
> >> of
> >> what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may
> be
> >> need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we
> know
> >> that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain
> >> allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high
> >> eventually.
> >>
> >> dariusz "pundit"
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Thomas Goldammer

Anders,

the problem is the strong US/EN-centric way the projects are handled by
WMF. That drives people away (especially the more critical/touchy
communities like DE), and it didn't start with the superprotect mess. There
were other serious affronts by WMF (image filter, etc.) to the community
before that, but don't let us delve into that now, everyone following this
list in the last 5 or so years knows what is meant. ;)

Moreover, how is this "impact" measured? By number of uploads/new articles
etc.? The dewp community has always valued quality much much higher than
quantity. Does WMF even have a decent way of measuring quality for that
impact assessment? So before looking at WMDE's performance to keep the
community alive, one should first look at WMF's and there I see many
shortfalls as well. Nobody can link the editor decline in DE projects to
WMDE's performance alone. There are just too many other factors, including
cultural differences, that need to be taken into account as well.

Th.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the
> current measures are inconsistent.

Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under
evaluation.
As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.

> I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters
> have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off the
> time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
>
> Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
>
> I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was
> said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be payment
> processors.

Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board
were different.
Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.

This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC
(see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.

IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible
would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.

Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

The problem is that any change means "change management".

I would say that the board must evaluate the impact of any change they are
bringing using the same effort they use to evaluate an impact of a project.

Any change means change manegemtn (as said) to adapt the current
organization to this change.

A change means: money, time, review of strategy, review of organization,
review of scope of the organization.

Basically the time needed to find money and to adapt the organization to
the changes is more or less similar to the time needed to do projects.

Now I will come back to the FDC: I would expect from the FDC a dedicated
section to say that the chapters need resources to finance this change and
this resources *cannot be financed with external funds* because it's a
request of the board of WMF and the board of WMF must also define the
financial resources to adapt this change.

The realistic approach of the FDC would be: the chapters are required to
adapt their organization and their strategy to this decision, so WMF will
finance the chapters to *apply this change*.

It cannot be done with external funds or with money of the chapters,
because it's not a decision of the donors or of the General Assembly.

In any governance aspect it's important to understand that any change is
connected with a risk management and with a specific budget to manage the
change because any change can have the biggest impact in the organization
and probably this impact cannot be rollbacked without spending additional
resources.

regards

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> 2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> > If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the
> > current measures are inconsistent.
>
> Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under
> evaluation.
> As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.
>
> > I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters
> > have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off
> the
> > time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
> >
> > Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
> >
> > I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was
> > said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be
> payment
> > processors.
>
> Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board
> were different.
> Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.
>
> This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC
> (see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.
>
> IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible
> would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario 
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli 
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli 
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli 
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 24 November 2014 at 13:29, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> 2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> > If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the
> > current measures are inconsistent.
>
> Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under
> evaluation.
> As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.
>
> > I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters
> > have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off
> the
> > time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
> >
> > Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
> >
> > I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was
> > said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be
> payment
> > processors.
>
> Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board
> were different.
> Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.
>
> This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC
> (see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.
>
> IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible
> would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Juergen Fenn

2014-11-24 13:44 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> The problem is that any change means "change management".

But who was it that authorised which change? I would like to focus on
what makes sense, which means that any technocratic category just
won't lead us anywhere. In the end, what once was referred to as the
Wikimedia movement has become a strange lot of organisations that have
lost contact with the community of editors. The only thing that keeps
them together in the end is money -- which is a bourgeois trade of
old. And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter
understood that it had to intensify links with the community and
partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less
money, severing the chapter from its peers. That's no way still to
empower the remaining editing community which is best served locally.
Cutting the local chapters short and poor results in less support for
editors, of course.

Regards,
Jürgen.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen

Hoi,
What makes sense is to spend money effectively. When the German chapter
decides to change its way drastically, it does not follow that they deserve
the same amount of money no questions asked. When they decide to change,
they can provide plans that allow for the evaluation of the new track.
Asking for money because of the need for change is no problem.

The notion that the community knows best is as much propaganda as anything.
Maybe it does, it depends on the plans and in the results to learn if the
German community has the right end of the stick.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 24 November 2014 at 14:31, Juergen Fenn 
wrote:

> 2014-11-24 13:44 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> > The problem is that any change means "change management".
>
> But who was it that authorised which change? I would like to focus on
> what makes sense, which means that any technocratic category just
> won't lead us anywhere. In the end, what once was referred to as the
> Wikimedia movement has become a strange lot of organisations that have
> lost contact with the community of editors. The only thing that keeps
> them together in the end is money -- which is a bourgeois trade of
> old. And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter
> understood that it had to intensify links with the community and
> partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less
> money, severing the chapter from its peers. That's no way still to
> empower the remaining editing community which is best served locally.
> Cutting the local chapters short and poor results in less support for
> editors, of course.
>
> Regards,
> Jürgen.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Nathan

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Juergen Fenn  wrote:


> And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter
> understood that it had to intensify links with the community and
> partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less
> money, severing the chapter from its peers.
>


>
> Regards,
> Jürgen.
>
>
Given that WMDE still receives far, far more than any other chapter, it's
hard to swallow this claim that the budget reduction is what has severed it
from its peers. I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that the
decline in editors is the result of the superprotect right, a bold claim to
make without providing any support.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for?

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Wikimedia_Nederland

If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage:
«The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at
this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does
not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to
reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount
requested to the FDC in future proposals.»

(see also what I said in my previous email)
(it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves
in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational
costs)


C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)


pajz, 23/11/2014 18:07:

while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have
not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a
preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time
series of the number of editors and say "good trend -> congrats, chapter" /
"bad trend -> oh, guess the chapter did a bad job". What tells you that if
a project is experiencing a 10% decline of its editor base from year 1 to
year 2 that it wouldn't have lost 20% without the chapter's activities?


Indeed; blaming WMDE for the number of editors in de.wiki is less 
ridiculous than asking immediate disbanding of WMF for the editor decline.

Back to serious numbers: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm
If you check the graphs for active editors and desktop page views, the 
two lines are curiously parallel. Coincidence? Yes, several of the 
biggest Wikipedias are quickly rushing to their death in few years; 
nobody is doing anything.
Cf. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_sudden_decline_of_Italian_Wikipedia


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Sydney Poore

A point of clarification for the people who are not looking at the
recommendation chart, the FDC recommends that Wikimedia Argentina (WMAR)
receive an increase of 21.14% above their allocation last year. Lodewijk is
commenting that the FDC did not recommend the full amount that WMAR
requested.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I can very well understand why people are careful about commenting. Most
> people who have the insight to make sensible comments on the con located
> matter have a stake in it. They are active in the wmf, want to run for a
> committee in which process they might be deemed too opinionated or they
> fear that it might harm the future applications of their chapter or
> project. I'm afraid that to a very large extent there are too many
> interdependencies for a proper public discussion on many issues.
>
> That said, while I disagree with several things in the advice, such as the
> somewhat childish and symbolic cut of 2000 USD against wmar, overall I also
> see various improvements in the level of detail and arguments that ought to
> be applauded.
>
> Lodewijk
> On Nov 23, 2014 9:35 AM, "Thomas Goldammer"  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > this is called "narrowing focus" by WMF, you see.
> >
> > But you wanted a comment on the FDC. The only thing I can say is: To base
> > such a decision on things like "the FDC feels" and "to appear" and "it is
> > likely" (all quotes from their text within a single paragraph) makes me
> > think that they get very poor information and instead of trying to get it
> > richer (for example by talking to *all* relevant people), they make a
> very
> > poor decision out of it.
> >
> > Th.
> >
> > 2014-11-23 8:27 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am really surprised how little attention this is getting.
> > >
> > > I have a few questions, observations. When I read the arguments for
> > cutting
> > > the request of the German chapter, I get the impression that the
> Germans
> > > are punished. I also find no considerations to the consequences of NOT
> > > providing the requested funding. There are many people employed by the
> > > German chapter, are they to be dismissed or is there to be less money
> for
> > > activities? When I read about the Dutch request, they are praised for
> > being
> > > prudent and careful planners but they are punished for not being
> actively
> > > involved in fundraising.
> > >
> > > The WIkimedia Foundation deliberately excluded the chapters from the
> > > fundraising efforts. Enough comments have been made about this
> recently;
> > it
> > > is obvious to many that the WMF seems not to care too much about what
> > funds
> > > are raised outside the USA. There is also no relation between
> fundraising
> > > in a country and activities in a country. I am annoyed that the WMF is
> so
> > > two faced in this.
> > >
> > > The process of handing out gifts makes beggars of the chapters. They
> have
> > > to comply with the vagaries of what committee members think at a given
> > > time. The process of handing out is very much solidified in time and
> from
> > > the impression I get this is true for the chapters but not for the WMF
> > > itself.  When it finds a need to do whatever, it can. When a chapter
> > finds
> > > the same need it cannot.
> > >
> > > In my opinion by making chapters second class citizens, the WMF will
> > remain
> > > USA and English centred. That does not help our goal of "sharing in the
> > sum
> > > of all available knowledge".
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > PS there are more chapters where I am not happy about the granting of
> > gifts
> > > either.
> > >
> > > On 21 November 2014 at 17:34, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings, friends,
> > > >
> > > > As you all know, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice
> a
> > > year
> > > > to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement
> funds
> > > to
> > > > achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
> We
> > > > recently met in San Francisco to deliberate on the 11 annual plan
> grant
> > > > proposals submitted for this round of review. [2] We thank these
> > > > organizations for their hard work on their annual plans and
> proposals.
> > > >
> > > > The FDC has now posted our Round 1 2014-2015 recommendations on the
> > > annual
> > > > plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees:
> > > > http://goo.gl/Ea7d4I . [3]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > With the support of the FDC’s two Board Representatives (Bishakha
> Datta
> > > and
> > > > Frieda Brioschi), the WMF Board will review the recommendations and
> > then
> > > > make their decision on them by 1 January 2015.
> > > >
> > > > This round, proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic
> > > organization,
> > > > totaling requests of roughly $4.7 million USD.  Before our
> face-to-face
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-24 Thread Sydney Poore

Hi Patrik,

(I'm speaking for myself as a member of the FDC, not as a spokesperson for
the whole committee.)

A large part of the reason that the FDC was created was to have an
international group of volunteers do the work of helping the organizations
in the wikimedia family do a better job around strategic planning,
governance practices, and creating and executing budgeted activities that
bring impact to the wikimedia movement locally and globally.

During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the
organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC for
the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic planning,
budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for
improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including the WMF.)

If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest
organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver impact to
the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many instances
it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop and
execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations about
unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or program,
often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an organizations
capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated
projects.)

In some instance we gave general comments about some funds. For example,
the FDC commented on the Wikimedia Deutschland’s Volunteer Support program,
with an estimated cost of € 710,000 ($880,000 USD) for next year which was
larger than any other single proposal made to the FDC. Reiterate that I'm
speaking for myself not the whole FDC,  I think that Wikimedia Deutschland
did not make a stronger justification to the whole wikimedia movement about
why that this high level of funding should be dissemination to the
wikimedia movement through this program. Because we are making a
recommendation about unrestricted funds, this type of evaluation and
revamping needs to come from inside Wikimedia Deutschland.

Patrik, you are asking good questions and making insightful comments, so I
encourage you to join the larger discussion about the way that the
wikimedia movement funds the work of volunteers and organizations. Look out
for announcements about community discussion around strategic planning and
wikimedia movement grants and join in!.

Warm regards,

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Member FDC

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:21 PM, pajz  wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > All in all, this is
> > unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically
> > advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and
> > what needs to be shut down.
> >
>
> sure, I understand this, but I'm sure that you and the other members are
> making such demands anyway (internally); my suggestion is to make that a
> part of the deliberation process of the entire committee, and then put a
> price tag to individual concerns. The chapter can still make its own
> decisions about how to spend their money, but at least it facilitates both
> the affected chapter's and the public's understanding of what's going on.
>
> One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
> wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters
> as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC
> process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC
> or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it
> sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if
> one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives
> the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk
> of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
> it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
> other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
> funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
> grants programs of the WMF, right?
>
> Cheers,
> Patrik
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Ilario Valdelli

In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years,
to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.

I would say that it's *out of context*.

I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical
is the best example to follow.

How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other
chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic.

Ok, nothing to say but:
a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue
within the community
b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization
c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal
questions (may be the opposite)
d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small

A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.

I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in
the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check
how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to
generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good
solution to improve the community participation to the projects.

What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the
biggest projects.

It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and
the Global South but without paying attention that the historical
communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but there are
more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" editors and
the change of the target is not producing a real impact.

So it's not a question of comparison of three budget.

If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not
beneficial.

regards


Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore"  ha scritto:

> Hi Patrik,
>
>
> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the
> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC for
> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic planning,
> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for
> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including the WMF.)
>
> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest
> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver impact to
> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many instances
> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop and
> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations about
> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or program,
> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an organizations
> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated
> projects.)
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Member FDC
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Balázs Viczián

In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
or less on its maximum I think.

Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest
would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is
pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
full "business plan" - review)

Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals,
focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
group of people are handling
out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works
pretty well.

Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup.

That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that
arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
ombudsperson for the case(s).

I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
"incoherentness" of reviews.

Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to
the system imo.

Balazs

2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli :
> In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three years,
> to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
>
> I would say that it's *out of context*.
>
> I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that Amical
> is the best example to follow.
>
> How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other
> chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is surrealistic.
>
> Ok, nothing to say but:
> a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue
> within the community
> b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization
> c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal
> questions (may be the opposite)
> d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small
>
> A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.
>
> I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in
> the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check
> how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to
> generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good
> solution to improve the community participation to the projects.
>
> What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the
> biggest projects.
>
> It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity and
> the Global South but without paying attention that the historical
> communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but there are
> more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" editors and
> the change of the target is not producing a real impact.
>
> So it's not a question of comparison of three budget.
>
> If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not
> beneficial.
>
> regards
>
>
> Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore"  ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Patrik,
>>
>>
>> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of the
>> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC
>> for
>> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic
>> planning,
>> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of room for
>> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including the WMF.)
>>
>> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest
>> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver impact to
>> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many instances
>> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop and
>> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations about
>> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or program,
>> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an organizations
>> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated
>> projects.)
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Sydney Poore
>> User:FloNight
>> Member FDC
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Hi Balazs,

I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC
members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an
ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a
~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for
Nida Foundation for over 10 years (smaller amounts, but many more projects
each round); also for some years I was on the funds board for Interkl@sa
program at American-Polish Freedom Foundation. I am currently an advisory
board member for the largest scientific center in Poland (and besides
regular advisory board duties, consult them on innovation management and
strategy). I have experience in consulting on strategy to other  NGOs and
businesses. I also regularly teach strategic management to MBAs end execs,
including programs specifically profiled towards IT and the Internet
business. Of course you can always say that it would be better to have
someone with more experience, but I believe the principle was that we also
need people from within the movement, and able to make a significant time
commitment. In any case, I find the statement about little or zero
experience seriously  unfounded.

best,

dariusz "pundit"


On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote:

> In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
> or less on its maximum I think.
>
> Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest
> would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is
> pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
> full "business plan" - review)
>
> Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
> all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals,
> focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
> out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
> group of people are handling
> out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works
> pretty well.
>
> Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a setup.
>
> That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that
> arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
> ombudsperson for the case(s).
>
> I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
> improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
> possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
> "incoherentness" of reviews.
>
> Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to
> the system imo.
>
> Balazs
>
> 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli :
> > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three
> years,
> > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
> >
> > I would say that it's *out of context*.
> >
> > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that
> Amical
> > is the best example to follow.
> >
> > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other
> > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is
> surrealistic.
> >
> > Ok, nothing to say but:
> > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong glue
> > within the community
> > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization
> > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or internal
> > questions (may be the opposite)
> > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small
> >
> > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.
> >
> > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look in
> > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to check
> > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community to
> > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good
> > solution to improve the community participation to the projects.
> >
> > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the
> > biggest projects.
> >
> > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity
> and
> > the Global South but without paying attention that the historical
> > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but there are
> > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" editors and
> > the change of the target is not producing a real impact.
> >
> > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget.
> >
> > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is not
> > beneficial.
> >
> > regards
> >
> >
> > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore"  ha scritto:
> >
> >> Hi Patrik,
> >>
> >>
> >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority of
> the
> >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the FDC
> >> for
> >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic
> >> planning,
> >> budget

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Ilario Valdelli

~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?

The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means
to justify that to the stakeholders.

The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
previously because the chapters have to find external funds.

This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).

I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or
project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities,
resources, targets or deliverables".

WMF is one stakeholders.

The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
stakeholders and so on.

In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF
is *one of the stakeholders*.

And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision
like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in
order to attract stakeholders.

Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the
consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with
less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the
chapter.

This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest
budget.

regards

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Hi Balazs,
>
> I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the FDC
> members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was an
> ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a
> ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote:
>
> > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
> > or less on its maximum I think.
> >
> > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest
> > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is
> > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
> > full "business plan" - review)
> >
> > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
> > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals,
> > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
> > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
> > group of people are handling
> > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works
> > pretty well.
> >
> > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a
> setup.
> >
> > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that
> > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
> > ombudsperson for the case(s).
> >
> > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
> > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
> > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
> > "incoherentness" of reviews.
> >
> > Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to
> > the system imo.
> >
> > Balazs
> >
> > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli :
> > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three
> > years,
> > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
> > >
> > > I would say that it's *out of context*.
> > >
> > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that
> > Amical
> > > is the best example to follow.
> > >
> > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other
> > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is
> > surrealistic.
> > >
> > > Ok, nothing to say but:
> > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong
> glue
> > > within the community
> > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization
> > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or
> internal
> > > questions (may be the opposite)
> > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small
> > >
> > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.
> > >
> > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look
> in
> > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to
> check
> > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community
> to
> > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a good
> > > solution to improve the community participation to the projects.
> > >
> > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the
> > > biggest projects.
> > >
> > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity
> > and
> > > the Global South but without paying attention that the historical
> > > communities and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of
really small chapters in our movement.

I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming
that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
Foundation).

Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it
whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just
as well as (b) failed attempts.

best,

dj "pundit"

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
>
> The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means
> to justify that to the stakeholders.
>
> The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
> previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
>
> This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).
>
> I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
> individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or
> project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities,
> resources, targets or deliverables".
>
> WMF is one stakeholders.
>
> The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
> associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
> stakeholders and so on.
>
> In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF
> is *one of the stakeholders*.
>
> And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision
> like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in
> order to attract stakeholders.
>
> Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the
> consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with
> less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the
> chapter.
>
> This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest
> budget.
>
> regards
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Balazs,
> >
> > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of the
> FDC
> > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I was
> an
> > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a
> > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board for
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz "pundit"
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> > balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote:
> >
> > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
> > > or less on its maximum I think.
> > >
> > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest
> > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is
> > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
> > > full "business plan" - review)
> > >
> > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
> > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals,
> > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
> > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
> > > group of people are handling
> > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works
> > > pretty well.
> > >
> > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a
> > setup.
> > >
> > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that
> > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
> > > ombudsperson for the case(s).
> > >
> > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
> > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
> > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
> > > "incoherentness" of reviews.
> > >
> > > Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to
> > > the system imo.
> > >
> > > Balazs
> > >
> > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli :
> > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare three
> > > years,
> > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that it's *out of context*.
> > > >
> > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider that
> > > Amical
> > > > is the best example to follow.
> > > >
> > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other
> > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is
> > > surrealistic.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, nothing to say but:
> > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong
> > glue
> > > > within the community
> > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects =
> organization
> > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-25 12:05 GMT+01:00 Balázs Viczián :
> Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
> all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals,
> focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
> out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
> group of people are handling
> out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it works
> pretty well.

I must admit that I am little sad to say that the FDC is not that
special but what we are doing is called "participatory grantmaking"
and it's hardly new. Participatory grantmaking is a practice that has
been around for a while now (since the 1970s):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_grantmaking

Of course, not all of us have the astounding background of Dariusz
("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (cit.)) but that's
acceptable in the framework of participatory grantmaking.

We are also participating with all the other WMF committees volunteers
(IEG, GAC) in a research program from Lafayette Practice
(http://www.thelafayettepractice.com/), I think that Anasuya Sengupta
[WMF's Director of Grantmaking[*]] can give more info about this if
needed.

Of course any feedback is appreciated and process feedback even more.

On a somewhat related note, I want also to take the occasion to point
out that WMF said that they will devise a community review process for
their annual plan. This mechanism has still to be devised, it will
probably not be the FDC[+].

C
[*] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grantmaking_and_Programs
[+] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Advisory_Group/Recommendations/2014/ED_Response#WMF.E2.80.99s_involvement_as_a_fundseeker_in_the_FDC_process

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that
members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for
bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)

best,

dj

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding
> processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
>
> Vince
>
> 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
>
>> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of
>> really small chapters in our movement.
>>
>> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming
>> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
>> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
>> Foundation).
>>
>> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
>> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it
>> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't
>> just
>> as well as (b) failed attempts.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dj "pundit"
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
>> >
>> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
>> means
>> > to justify that to the stakeholders.
>> >
>> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
>> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
>> >
>> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).
>> >
>> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
>> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service
>> or
>> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities,
>> > resources, targets or deliverables".
>> >
>> > WMF is one stakeholders.
>> >
>> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
>> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
>> > stakeholders and so on.
>> >
>> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because
>> WMF
>> > is *one of the stakeholders*.
>> >
>> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision
>> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in
>> > order to attract stakeholders.
>> >
>> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk,
>> the
>> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with
>> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the
>> > chapter.
>> >
>> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest
>> > budget.
>> >
>> > regards
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Balazs,
>> > >
>> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of
>> the
>> > FDC
>> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I
>> was
>> > an
>> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran
>> a
>> > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination board
>> for
>> > >
>> > > best,
>> > >
>> > > dariusz "pundit"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
>> > > balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
>> > > > or less on its maximum I think.
>> > > >
>> > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the
>> closest
>> > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it
>> is
>> > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a
>> > > > full "business plan" - review)
>> > > >
>> > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
>> > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global
>> goals,
>> > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you say it
>> > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
>> > > > group of people are handling
>> > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it
>> works
>> > > > pretty well.
>> > > >
>> > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a
>> > > setup.
>> > > >
>> > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes
>> that
>> > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated
>> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s).
>> > > >
>> > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
>> > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
>> > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
>> > > > "incoherentness" of reviews.
>> > > >
>> > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical changes
>> to
>> > > > the system imo.
>> > > >
>> > > > Balazs
>> > > >
>> > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ila

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Cristian Consonni

2014-11-25 13:49 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli :
> Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the
> consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with
> less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the
> chapter.

That's a very good point. but we can rely that entities stay true on
their bylaws that, having been examined as part of the affiliation
process should all point towards the movement mission (in their own
contextualized wa). In other words this is when AffComm work kicks in
(in the long term).

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Balázs Viczián

Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.

How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak

Vince

2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak :
> we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years
> of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is
> true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board,
> or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
>
> If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds)
> does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
>
> Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need
> people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people
> with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián 
> wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
>>
>> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about
>> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had
>> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
>>
>> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between
>> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
>>
>> Vince
>>
>> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
>>
>>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that
>>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for
>>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dj
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

 "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its
 preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.

 Vince

 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :

> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the
> level
> of
> really small chapters in our movement.
>
> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you
> assuming
> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
> Foundation).
>
> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it
> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't
> just
> as well as (b) failed attempts.
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli 
> wrote:
>
> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
> >
> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
> means
> > to justify that to the stakeholders.
> >
> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
> >
> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a
> > lot).
> >
> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization,
> service or
> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities,
> > resources, targets or deliverables".
> >
> > WMF is one stakeholders.
> >
> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
> > stakeholders and so on.
> >
> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter
> because WMF
> > is *one of the stakeholders*.
> >
> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a
> decision
> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy
> in
> > order to attract stakeholders.
> >
> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the
> > risk,
> the
> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder
> with
> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of
> > the
> > chapter.
> >
> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of
> biggest
> > budget.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Balazs,
> > >
> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion
> > > of
> the
> > FDC
> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but
> I was
> > an
> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

Balazs,

if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the
following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination
Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language
skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by
Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the
last 8+ years".

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián  wrote:

> Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
>
> How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from
> there?
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak
>
> Vince
>
> 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak :
> > we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
> years
> > of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is
> > true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
> Board,
> > or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
> >
> > If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds)
> > does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
> >
> > Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need
> > people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
> people
> > with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz "pundit"
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> balazs.vicz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
> >>
> >> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about
> >> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had
> >> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
> >>
> >> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between
> >> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
> >>
> >> Vince
> >>
> >> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> >>
> >>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that
> >>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for
> >>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>>
> >>> dj
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián
> >>>  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi,
> 
>  "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its
>  preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
> 
>  Vince
> 
>  2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> 
> > I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the
> > level
> > of
> > really small chapters in our movement.
> >
> > I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you
> > assuming
> > that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
> > community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
> > Foundation).
> >
> > Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
> > further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get
> it
> > whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
> isn't
> > just
> > as well as (b) failed attempts.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj "pundit"
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
> > >
> > > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
> > means
> > > to justify that to the stakeholders.
> > >
> > > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
> > > previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
> > >
> > > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a
> > > lot).
> > >
> > > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
> > > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization,
> > service or
> > > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the
> activities,
> > > resources, targets or deliverables".
> > >
> > > WMF is one stakeholders.
> > >
> > > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
> > > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
> > > stakeholders and so on.
> > >
> > > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter
> > because WMF
> > > is *one of the stakeholders*.
> > >
> > > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a
> > decision
> > > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the
> strategy
> > in
> > > order to attract stakeholders.
> > >
> > > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the
> > > risk,
> > the
> > > con

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Lodewijk

I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to
turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely
I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.

The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle -
the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has
at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should
be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start
discussing the people.

Thanks!

Lodewijk

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Balazs,
>
> if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the
> following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination
> Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language
> skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by
> Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the
> last 8+ years".
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu
> > wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
> >
> > How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from
> > there?
> >
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak
> >
> > Vince
> >
> > 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak :
> > > we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
> > years
> > > of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is
> > > true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
> > Board,
> > > or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
> > >
> > > If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing
> funds)
> > > does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
> > >
> > > Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need
> > > people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
> > people
> > > with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dariusz "pundit"
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> > balazs.vicz...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
> > >>
> > >> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking
> about
> > >> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they
> had
> > >> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
> > >>
> > >> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference
> between
> > >> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
> > >>
> > >> Vince
> > >>
> > >> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> > >>
> > >>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that
> > >>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed
> for
> > >>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
> > >>>
> > >>> best,
> > >>>
> > >>> dj
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián
> > >>>  > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its
> >  preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
> > 
> >  Vince
> > 
> >  2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> > 
> > > I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the
> > > level
> > > of
> > > really small chapters in our movement.
> > >
> > > I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you
> > > assuming
> > > that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
> > > community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
> > > Foundation).
> > >
> > > Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so
> your
> > > further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get
> > it
> > > whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
> > isn't
> > > just
> > > as well as (b) failed attempts.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj "pundit"
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <
> valde...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
> > > >
> > > > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest
> budget
> > > means
> > > > to justify that to the stakeholders.
> > > >
> > > > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex
> than
> > > > previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
> > > >
> > > > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a
> > > > lot).
> > > >
> > > > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
> > > > individuals or groups that have an interest in an or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Liam Wyatt

Excellently put Lodewijk.

In an attempt to answer your question:
I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds
externally.

In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has
been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered
independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that
everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be
donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this
principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of
the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally.

Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the
FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding
sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the
global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets
should take more into account those funds.

Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC
is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not
read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I
would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of
Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.

A corollary question is, if a chapter does receive external funding (from
whatever source), how should that money be accounted for in the Annual
Plan? If it is in a separate budget that is outside FDC-scrutiny that would
seem to be a way of avoiding accountability to the movement as a whole...
On the other hand, should the FDC have jurisdiction over money that is not
derived from the WMF APG program?

It's possible that extensive explanations for these questions exists
already and I just didn't know where to find it - sorry if that's the case
:-) Also, I'm not asking the FDC to "answer" these questions now (or saying
which option I prefer), I'm wanting to know if the WMF Board of Trustees
has given clear instructions to the FDC/Chapters in this area.

Sincerely,
-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata

On 25 November 2014 at 18:38, Lodewijk  wrote:

> I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to
> turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely
> I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.
>
> The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle -
> the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has
> at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should
> be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start
> discussing the people.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Nathan

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Excellently put Lodewijk.
>
> In an attempt to answer your question:
> I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds
> externally.
>
> In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has
> been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered
> independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that
> everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be
> donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this
> principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of
> the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally.
>
> Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the
> FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding
> sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the
> global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets
> should take more into account those funds.
>
> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC
> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not
> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I
> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of
> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.


Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to
funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by
individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Anders Wennersten


As Nathan I see no contradiction.

I would feel embarrassed if  WMSE had used FDC  funding in their project 
to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that 
funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations 
(but not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)


But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera 
that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been 
uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a  
million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use


Anders



Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:


Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC
is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not
read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I
would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of
Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.


Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to
funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by
individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up

2014-11-25 Thread Balázs Viczián

Supporting individual English teachers in rural Poland and reviewing
hundred thousand to million dollar grants from all around the World
are barely comparable to each other if they can be at all, but
definitely can be counted as relevant experience. Anyways I meant to
give an overall positive critic,

I am sorry that you focused on the negative parts only and took it
personal, it was never my intention.

Vince

2014-11-25 18:38 GMT+01:00, Lodewijk :
> I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to
> turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely
> I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.
>
> The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle -
> the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has
> at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should
> be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start
> discussing the people.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> Balazs,
>>
>> if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the
>> following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination
>> Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language
>> skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by
>> Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over
>> the
>> last 8+ years".
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián <
>> balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
>> >
>> > How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing
>> > from
>> > there?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak
>> >
>> > Vince
>> >
>> > 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak :
>> > > we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
>> > years
>> > > of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It
>> > > is
>> > > true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
>> > Board,
>> > > or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the
>> > > FDC.
>> > >
>> > > If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing
>> funds)
>> > > does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
>> > >
>> > > Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do
>> > > need
>> > > people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
>> > people
>> > > with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
>> > >
>> > > best,
>> > >
>> > > dariusz "pundit"
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
>> > balazs.vicz...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
>> > >>
>> > >> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking
>> about
>> > >> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they
>> had
>> > >> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
>> > >>
>> > >> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference
>> between
>> > >> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
>> > >>
>> > >> Vince
>> > >>
>> > >> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
>> > >>
>> > >>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that
>> > >>> that
>> > >>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed
>> for
>> > >>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> best,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> dj
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián
>> > >>> > > >>> > wrote:
>> > >>>
>> >  Hi,
>> > 
>> >  "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its
>> >  preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was
>> >  misunderstandable.
>> > 
>> >  Vince
>> > 
>> >  2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak :
>> > 
>> > > I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the
>> > > level
>> > > of
>> > > really small chapters in our movement.
>> > >
>> > > I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you
>> > > assuming
>> > > that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy?  We are an independent,
>> > > community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
>> > > Foundation).
>> > >
>> > > Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so
>> your
>> > > further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to
>> > > get
>> > it
>> > > whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
>> > isn't
>> > > just
>> > > as well as (b) failed attempts.
>> > >
>> > > best,
>> > >
>> > > dj "pundit"
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <
>> valde...@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up