That sounds interesting, Lila. Would it be possible to introduce some concepts of beeing agile in this process and forget about quarterly goals and 3 year planning?
Rupert On Nov 24, 2015 19:53, "Lila Tretikov" <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
