~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 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 <valde...@gmail.com>: > > > 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" <sydney.po...@gmail.com> 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, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- 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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
