While Sue's concerns about the overheads involved with some of the Wikimedia chapters seem well-founded, there would also be some pretty obvious problems with the WMF attempting to fund individuals around the world directly. A well run local chapter seems better placed to sort the wheat from the chaff when assessing country/region-specific proposals, and that might be a good angle to emphasise as part of WMAU funding applications - the chapter has a pretty good record in funding projects that result in additional content being added to Wikipedia and Commons (and other sites), and it's overheads are very low compared to some of the other chapters. The Committee might also want to highlight the kind of proposals it doesn't approve to demonstrate the advantages of local knowledge. As an aside, from having watched the video, it's notable that the WMF's grants team comprises 10 people. This is a large team to administer $US8 million in funding, most of which is apparently being provided to a small number of chapters with whom the WMF has long standing relationships and reporting arrangements - the overheads for the team alone would be in the order of $US1-$2 million. While it obviously costs money to assess and administer grants effectively (and this kind of work can be very labour-intensive when done correctly), this is relatively generous staffing compared to what NGOs or public service agencies would allocate to a program of this scale and type. If the WMF wants to allocate less money to chapters and more to individuals they're facing some major internal costs... Nick From: kerry.raym...@gmail.com To: memb...@wikimedia.org.au; wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:26:01 +1000 Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
Further to this, I happened to be watching to the WMF Metrics Meeting, which also reveals some interesting information on the grants process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKD5eGFNkI with the relevant section commencing at 34 mins 20 secs. Kerry From: Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 6:21 AM To: 'memb...@wikimedia.org.au'; 'Wikimedia Australia Chapter' Subject: FW: [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations From: Chapters [mailto:chapters-boun...@wikimedia.ch] On Behalf Of Itzik Edri Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 5:49 AM To: Chapters mailing list Subject: [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations Hey, I don't know how many of you had the time already to read Sue's report. I'll give some Chapters Executive Highlights: · Upshot: I am pleased by the first year of the FDC. That said, I also want to note that I have significant concerns about how our movement entities are developing. · · Disproportionate resources and influence of Wikimedia organizations: I believe that currently, too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the chapters. The value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the movement. We have over 40 Wikimedia organizations today, 12 of whom received funding allocations through the FDC last year. Of the US$5.65 million WMF gave out in grants last year, 89% or US$5.04 million were to affiliate entities, with US$4.71 million (83% of the total grants) to these 12 entities for their annual plans. I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost, and I wonder whether it might make more sense for the movement to focus a larger amount of spending on direct financial support for individuals working in the projects. · · High costs and unclear results: [...] I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates requested by the entities submitting funding requests to the FDC: I believe that in order to justify the size of grants that have been sought, the entities involved should need to be able to say clearly how their plan will make an important contribution to helping the Wikimedia movement achieve its mission. · · Growing institutionalization of the movement: During the WMF strategic planning process, at the beginning of 2010, there were only three chapters with staff. By the end of the first year of the FDC process, there are at least 15 Wikimedia affiliates with full or part-time staff and offices (not all of them in the FDC process). [..] · · FDC process dominated by chapters perspectives: I am also concerned that the FDC itself --the most significant and powerful funding mechanism for our movement-- has very few non-chapter-related members: the majority of its members are also Board/former Board members of a chapter. [...]. But I do also believe that people who are involved in chapter organizations (and other Wikimedia organizations) have a particular worldview that is in some ways different from that of Wikimedians who choose not to become involved with incorporated Wikimedia organizations, and I think a healthy funds dissemination process would benefit from multiple perspectives. Itzik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:47 AM Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations To: Wikimedia Announce Mailing List <wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org> Hi folks, As you know, in July 2012 the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked me to set up the Funds Dissemination Committee, a volunteer-driven advisory committee created to make recommendations to the Board allocating funds for chapters and other Wikimedia movement entities. I did that, and the FDC has now been fully operational for a little more than a year. As part of the FDC framework, I committed that after the FDC’s first year of operation I would create a report for the Board that documented the state of the FDC at that moment in time, and told the Board about any revisions we had made to the process as a result of stakeholder input during its first year. The purpose of this note is to tell you that report is now posted. It’s here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Annual_report_on_the_Funds_Dissemination_Committee_process_2012-2013 If you’ve got comments on the report I’d suggest that rather than replying to this list, you leave them on the talk page. And, my thanks to everyone who contributed to the FDC's first year of operations, and also to the report :-) Thanks, Sue _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
