Hoi,
So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you FDC.
>
> Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That
> is nice to see.
>
> I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF
> will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>
> A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>
> I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that
> "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>
> I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>
> Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that
> the issues can be resolved soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" <mata...@foss.co.il> wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedians,
> >
> > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests
> > have now been published at:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> >
> > 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 met for four
> > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this
> > round of funding. [2]
> >
> > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the
> > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> [3]
> > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these
> > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
> >
> > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic
> > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
> applicant.
> > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one
> > particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
> >
> > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> > reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
> plans,
> > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact,
> > finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
> The
> > committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
> submitted
> > this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
> the
> > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
> >
> > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
> about
> > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
> budget
> > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of
> > this additional recommendation.
> >
> > For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about
> > these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes
> > for both are outlined below.
> >
> > Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their
> > proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in
> > accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
> formal
> > appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a
> > 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
> and
> > must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
> >
> > Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
> Ombudsperson,
> > and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as
> > well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and
> > investigate as needed.
> >
> > Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other
> > upcoming milestones in the APG program.
> >
> > Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who submitted
> > annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
> >
> > On behalf of the FDC,
> >
> > Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
> >
> > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG
> > [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
> > [3]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> > [4]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC
> > [5]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
> > [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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,
> <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>
