Hi Craig, You are right, this has been an ongoing request for years. This year we did many infrastructure updates for financial planning. However we missed some objectives. I take responsibility, specifically for the very short community feedback window on the annual plan this year. We fixed this in our upcoming plan. Overall we have improved in some of our core budgeting and accounting areas, but still have work to do.
This is what we have done this year to set up for financial controls: + Implemented KPIs across the organizations. + Implemented quarterly goals and reviews across organization. + Reduced book close to 15 days. + Catalogued projects to set up project-based accounting. + Created business cases to evaluate cost/benefit analysis as an evaluation tool for new projects. + Accounting/analytics software updates. Here is what is upcoming the rest of the fiscal year: + 3 year forward revenue/spend forecast. + A consultation with community about strategic goals. + A 30 day review period for the annual plan. + More detailed annual plan, project based accounting where possible. Impact goals. + Gap analysis of the annual plan vs. FDC. + Wikidata integration into the annual plan. Here is what under advisement: + 3rd party review of the annual plan. + FDC process alignment. Project based budgeting and 3 year forward projections are going to give us good understanding of the overall costs of multi-year projects. We will be able to answer for the total cost of developing Wikidata or new editing environment. This is a great improvement over what we were able to do previously and will help us with setting priorities in the future. Lila On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote: > Hi Lila, > > I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing > issue for years. What is required now is not more going around in circles > with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is > needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its > planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up having a > closer relation to the actual outcomes. The ball, as they say, is firmly > in your court. > > Cheers, > Craig > > > On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and >> are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue >> has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our >> process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going >> forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan >> >> Lila >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin < >> cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote: >> >>> I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; >>> the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially >>> considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is >>> something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to >>> my >>> mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless >>> FDC >>> that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem >>> is >>> receiving continued attention. >>> >>> It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in >>> a >>> constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying >>> to >>> spin them away. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Craig >>> >>> On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, 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 >>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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>
