Dear Dariusz and FDC, Thank you for this fine recommendation. I just read through it for the first time (of many, I expect), and the analyses are clearly getting crisper over time. There are many constructive details packed into each review, and the results are relevant both to the applying organizations, and to how we plan for the future.
I am glad to see the analysis of the excellent Wikimedia France proposal. And both the CIS and the Wikimedia Norge proposals seem to have been complicated in their own way, but were handled smoothly. The analysis of WMF's own proposal is clear and rewardingly thorough. (Other organizations may be jealous and ask for a more detailed report next time) A few points I found particularly useful: the focus on areas where we need clearer goals + measures, the detailed feedback on technical changes, and the observation that legal work is a significant part of our budget and work, and central to our mission, but here was lumped in with administration. The last point is indicative of a larger blind spot, I think. I also appreciate the emphasis on regular checks of our work against a strategy, and the need to organize an effective transition to new strategic goals. The suggestions for a community-led strategy advisory group, and for a pool of global metrics for [cross-]evaluation, are well considered. Both could also make the FDC's work easier in the future... Congratulations on this work. And good luck to those FDC advisors meeting over the coming days. Sam. On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > Hello friends, > > The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] > > On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014 > recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been > posted on Meta [2]: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 > > The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July > 2014. > > For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four > proposals. [3] These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one > non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD. > Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May, > the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff > assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and > history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an > overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and > FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal > form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and > prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions > about the proposals. > > The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it > required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to > the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We > sincerely appreciate them all for this work. > > For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a > separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of > many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology > so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and > appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives. > These are further explained below: > > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2 > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by > '''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process > outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: > > Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called > complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion): > > * A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the > form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF > Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta). > > * The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page > designated for this purpose. [4] > > * Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a > funding-seeking organization. > > * Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for > submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if > the recommendations are published before the deadline for the > recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals > is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''. > > * These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at > the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to > an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC > recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''. > > * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an > appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved. > > * If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of > the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary > circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the > WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial > recommendation. > > * The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the > Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by > the Chair of the WMF Board. > > Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called > appeals): > > * A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the > Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the FDC > process (e.g. in this instance, from start '''1 April 2014'''). > > * The complaint should be submitted on wiki, through the FDC portal page > designated for this purpose [5] > > * The ombudsperson will receive and publicly document the complaint, and > investigate the complaint, as needed. > > On behalf of the FDC, > > "pundit" Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair) > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC > > [2] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2 > > [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals > > [4] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC > > [5] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process > > [[Category:2013-2014 Round 2]] > _______________________________________________ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Samuel Klein w:user:sj @metasj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
