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
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
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 tha
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 found them encouraging
and a good demonstration
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 citizens
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.
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
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
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
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
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, obs
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
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.
regar
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/
>
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 cour
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.
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 thi
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
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 2,2
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
Practical
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
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
impl
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 ca
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 13,48
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, b
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 bo
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. I
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 Wikipedi
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
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
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,
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
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 n
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
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
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 eval
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
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 yo
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
bef
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 ti
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 ch
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 measure
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 referre
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.
As
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.
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 passag
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 -> congra
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.
Syd
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
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"?
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
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 b
~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 tha
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 (whic
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 sen
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 t
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
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
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
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
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
in
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 emph
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 genera
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 criti
Liam,
> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
> believe that they are at least partially contradictory
I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if
fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their
applications to
>
> On 25 November 2014 at 20:45, Nathan wrote:
>
> 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,
2014-11-25 18:09 GMT-03:00 Liam Wyatt :
> These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee
> the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources,
> not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course
> these points are linked
Hoi,
With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the
challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wm
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is
available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a
chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected
the
Probably it has not been considered that the general assembly of a chapter
is still a stakeholder.
In this case, for a better access to external funds, several chapters may
evaluate if it makes sense to move their legal status from a no profit
association to a foundation where the old no profit as
I can also read that:
"Yet the growth of *non-English communities* and project material is
critical for a vigorous and energetic long-term future for the projects,
and indeed, it is one of the top priorities developed by the movement
through our strategic planning process".
In addition I can read
Ilario, nobody has said that chapters should become fundraiser entities. We
have been very emphatic that the main focus of APG proposals should be
delivering impact in the projects and we maintain that. What we have said
is that chapters that have the opportunities to fundraise and reduce their
dep
Hoi,
Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this
reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on
> the chapters.
>
> Howe
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In
the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single
Hoi,
Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by
design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the
chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly
straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund
raising. A
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do
with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved
there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to
the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The
t
Gerard, we hear you. On the other hand, we have the example of Wikimedia
France, which has recently told us about a highly innovative event that
features community outreach, content creation, editing workshop, and
sufficient fundraising to pay for itself.
We know that, despite the issues of payme
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for
profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to
more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial
contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide
opportunities that would
A sidenote: raising funds is probably a better term - fundraising is
historically in Wikimedia often used to refer specifically to the small
donors. A process which chapters have been barred from unfortunately, and
which faces some interesting struggles on the WMF-side right now. But I
guess it's b
> 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).
It’s worth noting that the ombudsperson role has existed since the start of the
FDC - the role is there to receive, investiga
Well, I would say that probably the chapters are looking for external
funds not because WMF is suggesting to do it, but probably because it's
too much hard to follow the interpretations of the FDC.
Every year that a chapter applies for a FDC grant is like to go to the
sybil (https://en.wikiped
Hoi,
When the WMF staff is only involved in advising local fundraising, then the
WMF staff is considered superior. The actual situation is that the WMF
would do well and expect superior local knowledge and use it for its
fundraising. It should compensate the chapters for this. It would do well
when
Hello dear all,
this is not a response to any specific mails on this thread, just a few
thoughts from my side.
I am not very heavily involved in the FDC process, what I did was, well,
as one of the board member decided to create this process and one of the
advisory group member observed the
Hi all, this is to inform you that I just placed an official reaction to
the FDC funds allocation recommendation for WMNL on:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Comments_regarding_Wikimedia_Nederland
I'd like to add here that, contrary to
"Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote:
>> 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 "go
86 matches
Mail list logo
