Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Proposals
Hi SJ, Dear all, I've have posted WMDE's feedback on the discussion pages, respectively: a) for the proposal template: http://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/Template_talk:FDC_**proposal_form_v1http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:FDC_proposal_form_v1 *As to content:* **The question Approximately how many volunteers participate actively in your entity? is difficult to answer if you don't define what do you understand as active participation.* **In Table 4 we have encountered some problems with describing detailed activities and accurate indicators as our detailed program planning for 2013 will take place just in Nov/Dec. Maybe in the future you could point out what is the required level of detail and if it's OK to give some general examples.* **I think the proposal made sense as a whole and most of the questions were very accurate.* * * *As to technical diffculties:* * *The wiki-tables were a killer. Especially in case of WMDE they were so large that it was really difficult to a) create them and b) to fill them in and keep an overview of the code once you wanted to introduce some changes.* **Not being able to edit individual sections of the proposal made it extra difficult as well (each time I tried it the template code appeared and I had to go back and edit the document as a whole).* **The initially limited number of table entries (max. 6) was very problematic when you consider that in some tables we had 15 or more entries. This problem has been fixed but I would recommend reconsidering any entry-limitation in the future.* b) the overall process: http://meta.wikimedia.org/** wiki/FDC_portal/2012/FDC_**members/Commentshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/2012/FDC_members/Comments **Our community members raised the following concern (and we are aware that this has been discussed also before): all the proposals are available only in English which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to read nad comment on them accurately if you don't speak English or speak it poorly. This is a major problem if you want to enable a broad community participation during the process. Although we have offered a translation service for comments during the public comment phase to our members, we cannot translate all 13 proposals into German in such a short period of time (most of the proposal have been posted on the last days before the deadline and the public comment phase starts directly after). Also the financial aspect of such translation would have to be considered.* **Further, our community members pointed out that 2 weeks period is to short to read, understand and give a reasonable comment on all 13 proposals, especially if they are not in one's native language.* I've been also wondering whether there has already been an official call for comments for the worldwide community? I think something like this would be a good reminder and would motivate people to start commenting on the proposals (cause there is not much action going on right now). Best, Kasia 2012/10/4 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com Hi, Thanks for starting this thread, Itzik. I agree it is a great chance to see what different groups are planning for the coming year. I hope those who worked on one of these plans have some energy left to leave comments for one another. I would like to hear from chapters who filled out proposals whether they found the process straightforward, and whether / how it changed their annual planning. I would also like to hear from chapters who considered filling out a proposal but did not do so: why not? Regards, Sj On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Hi, Yesterday was the last day to submit proposals to the FDC for round 1 (and it strange that we didn't saw any reminder email about it..). I think it's a great opportunity to see (and give opinion about) the chapters foundation (core) programs and budget plans for 2013 (although it seem like not everyone finished filling out the forms): https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals Itzik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Kasia Odrozek Assistentin des Vorstands Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr.72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 151 46752534 http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
[Wikimedia-l] September report: Wikimedia Deutschland
Dear all, in the unlikely case that Wikimedia Deutschland's report pages[1] are not on your personal Meta-Wiki watchlist, you might have missed our September issue. Well, here's an email taxi to pick you up and take you to an overview of what we've been working on in the past few weeks. Please find the full report here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Deutschland/September_2012 The September issue includes an invitation to join the discussion of WMDE's annual plan 2013 draft version. There's an English translation on Meta and you're most welcome to share your thoughts on the draft's talk page![2] More from this month's report: Our Nicole Ebber recently introduced WMDE's new International Affairs Unit in September. She posted her introductory notes on the annual plan talk pages, as well, so check them out for detailed information on her upcoming work[2, again]. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/Wikimedia_Deutschland [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/en Best Michael -- Michael Jahn Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstraße 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 http://wikimedia.de http://www.wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch freien Zugang zu der Gesamtheit des Wissens der Menschheit hat. Helfen Sie uns dabei! *Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die Online-Petition:* http://wikipedia.de/wke/Main_Page?setlang=de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses
Hi, As agreed, the WMF is also sending their non-core program to the FDC approval, you can see their proposal here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form But I'm asking myself, that's all what we consider as non-core? I didn't really done a deep research in the WMF budget (as every item in the WMF budget is like the whole big chapter budget and there are no breakdown), but for example what jumped in my mind immediate: Merchandise store (311,000$=Wikimedia Magyarország + Wikimedia Israel + Wikimedia Argentina annual budget) - what make it core? or research (324,000$) and others (again, can't go deeply with that as the items in the budget are general..). Itzik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses
On 8 October 2012 12:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It seems clear to me, based on the end result and what foundation board and senior staff have said, that they decided an account of money they wanted to request from the FDC and then decided what to designate as non-core so that it added up to that amount. Rather disingenuous of them, but Sue has been very clear that she only sees the foundation's application as a way of testing the process rather than as actually being the right way to determine the budget. On Oct 8, 2012 11:14 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Hi Thomas Itzik, There's FAQ material on the wikis about how core versus non-core were determined -- I think it's part of the annual plan FAQ. (I'd link you to it, but I'm in a bit of a rush. Maybe somebody else can point to the right place?) The Board and I had a number of discussions about core versus non-core -- to very swiftly recap, we decided that we did not want core to mean the rock-bottom base costs of operating the site. We realized that in making that decision we'd risk being confusing, and that people would likely end up sending inquiries like the one Itzik just sent, because they'd likely be operating on the assumption that core did indeed mean base costs. We considered whether to label it as something other than core in order to avoid being confusing, but in the end went ahead with core for lack of a better word. Going from memory -- core is intended to represent the ordinary costs of running the global sites -- so for example, it would include all the costs of maintaining the trademark portfolio, providing legal defence where necessary, doing media stuff and internal global movement communications work, etc. For example we decided that internationalization localization are part of core, because our core work includes providing a service in multiple languages. We did not want core to represent the base, rock-bottom, non-negotiable costs of operating the sites on a shoestring, because that's not the purpose of this exercise, because we're not in a position where we need to make extraordinarily difficult choices about whether to preserve, for example, internationalization localization versus site performance. If we were in that position (needing to make very painful choices due to financial necessity) of course we would. But that's not where we are. Thomas, it's not actually true that I see this as purely an exercise in testing the FDC process, although I do definitely think running part of the WMF budget through the FDC will help us be sensitive to fund-seeker needs as we iterate the process. I do also see value in the process itself -- getting community input on the WMF's non-core activities, etc., will be useful. (Just FYI -- I won't be able to reply any more to this thread for much of the rest of the day, by the way -- I'm swamped and doing a bunch of things.) Thanks, Sue ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses
Dear Sue, I partially disagree with the statement we're not in a position where we need to make extraordinarily difficult choices about whether to preserve If you consider the WMF financial reserves it's true, but for what I understand, the FDC should decide about the distribution of the forthcoming fundraising and so we can only guess that the movement has no fundings problem. If this winter we cannot reach the total amount fixed, what will happen? The entities that apply to the FDC will have to share the money that remain after the WMF took a lot more than what is needed to operate the project (bottom base). I personnaly agree that the core should be more than only the basics, but there should be something between this extremitiy and the actual WMF FDC proposal where the community can comment only 10% of the real WMF budget. What I could suggest is too split the WMF proposal in two parts: 1)the expanded core (high priority) 2) the non core (lower priority=actual FDC proposal). In this case, if the fundraising is not successful has intend, the cost of the difficult choices will be assumed by all the part of the movement. sincerely Charles ___ Charles ANDRES, Chairman Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch Le 8 oct. 2012 à 14:08, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org a écrit : On 8 October 2012 12:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It seems clear to me, based on the end result and what foundation board and senior staff have said, that they decided an account of money they wanted to request from the FDC and then decided what to designate as non-core so that it added up to that amount. Rather disingenuous of them, but Sue has been very clear that she only sees the foundation's application as a way of testing the process rather than as actually being the right way to determine the budget. On Oct 8, 2012 11:14 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Hi Thomas Itzik, There's FAQ material on the wikis about how core versus non-core were determined -- I think it's part of the annual plan FAQ. (I'd link you to it, but I'm in a bit of a rush. Maybe somebody else can point to the right place?) The Board and I had a number of discussions about core versus non-core -- to very swiftly recap, we decided that we did not want core to mean the rock-bottom base costs of operating the site. We realized that in making that decision we'd risk being confusing, and that people would likely end up sending inquiries like the one Itzik just sent, because they'd likely be operating on the assumption that core did indeed mean base costs. We considered whether to label it as something other than core in order to avoid being confusing, but in the end went ahead with core for lack of a better word. Going from memory -- core is intended to represent the ordinary costs of running the global sites -- so for example, it would include all the costs of maintaining the trademark portfolio, providing legal defence where necessary, doing media stuff and internal global movement communications work, etc. For example we decided that internationalization localization are part of core, because our core work includes providing a service in multiple languages. We did not want core to represent the base, rock-bottom, non-negotiable costs of operating the sites on a shoestring, because that's not the purpose of this exercise, because we're not in a position where we need to make extraordinarily difficult choices about whether to preserve, for example, internationalization localization versus site performance. If we were in that position (needing to make very painful choices due to financial necessity) of course we would. But that's not where we are. Thomas, it's not actually true that I see this as purely an exercise in testing the FDC process, although I do definitely think running part of the WMF budget through the FDC will help us be sensitive to fund-seeker needs as we iterate the process. I do also see value in the process itself -- getting community input on the WMF's non-core activities, etc., will be useful. (Just FYI -- I won't be able to reply any more to this thread for much of the rest of the day, by the way -- I'm swamped and doing a bunch of things.) Thanks, Sue ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF core and non core expenses
Here's the relevant part of the Annual Plan FAQ: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2012-2013_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers#What_is_the_impact_of_the_FDC_on_this_plan.3F (see in particular the items How are core and non-core defined? and Why is non-core defined the way it is? Doesn’t it make more sense to define core as the rock-bottom costs of operating the projects (e.g., bandwidth and servers), and define everything else as non-core?) On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 8 October 2012 12:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: It seems clear to me, based on the end result and what foundation board and senior staff have said, that they decided an account of money they wanted to request from the FDC and then decided what to designate as non-core so that it added up to that amount. Rather disingenuous of them, but Sue has been very clear that she only sees the foundation's application as a way of testing the process rather than as actually being the right way to determine the budget. On Oct 8, 2012 11:14 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: Hi Thomas Itzik, There's FAQ material on the wikis about how core versus non-core were determined -- I think it's part of the annual plan FAQ. (I'd link you to it, but I'm in a bit of a rush. Maybe somebody else can point to the right place?) The Board and I had a number of discussions about core versus non-core -- to very swiftly recap, we decided that we did not want core to mean the rock-bottom base costs of operating the site. We realized that in making that decision we'd risk being confusing, and that people would likely end up sending inquiries like the one Itzik just sent, because they'd likely be operating on the assumption that core did indeed mean base costs. We considered whether to label it as something other than core in order to avoid being confusing, but in the end went ahead with core for lack of a better word. Going from memory -- core is intended to represent the ordinary costs of running the global sites -- so for example, it would include all the costs of maintaining the trademark portfolio, providing legal defence where necessary, doing media stuff and internal global movement communications work, etc. For example we decided that internationalization localization are part of core, because our core work includes providing a service in multiple languages. We did not want core to represent the base, rock-bottom, non-negotiable costs of operating the sites on a shoestring, because that's not the purpose of this exercise, because we're not in a position where we need to make extraordinarily difficult choices about whether to preserve, for example, internationalization localization versus site performance. If we were in that position (needing to make very painful choices due to financial necessity) of course we would. But that's not where we are. Thomas, it's not actually true that I see this as purely an exercise in testing the FDC process, although I do definitely think running part of the WMF budget through the FDC will help us be sensitive to fund-seeker needs as we iterate the process. I do also see value in the process itself -- getting community input on the WMF's non-core activities, etc., will be useful. (Just FYI -- I won't be able to reply any more to this thread for much of the rest of the day, by the way -- I'm swamped and doing a bunch of things.) Thanks, Sue ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Logo for new travel guide
Hi mike, you do realize that all images are stripped on this mailing list? If you want to mention images, it is best to link to the version on Commons (although I don't feel that the mailing list is an effective place to discuss this at all) Best, Lodewijk 2012/10/7 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com Here is my new suggestion with the colors, and the backpack has a wikipedia patch on it : [image: Inline image 1] here is the version without the patch in case someone thinks it might be a problem to include it : [image: Inline image 2] On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: thanks for the feeback I can color the backpack in those colors, and also can change the text at any time On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: Hello, It is not absolutely necessary to wait until we know the name because it will be later added simply to the logo. I like those compass needle versions, by the way. The logo should be not too complicated, and include the colours of Wikimedia. Kind regards Ziko 2012/10/6 Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com: please consider my latest logo : [image: Inline image 1] On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't object to look at it - please do :) I just suggest to delay the voting (and submission deadline) until a few days after the formal decision has been made by the Legal Counsel. Lodewijk 2012/10/6 James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com Okay I guess it would be nice but not necessary to have a new logo for launch. It is fairly clear at this point what name the new project will be going with. Thus I see no reason why we cannot begin looking at logos now. James Heilman ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 Free Software Foundation Europe Fellow http://fsfe.org/support/?h4ck3rm1k3 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Feedback page
In Anasuyas mail sent out, otherwise OK, she mentions comments on the FDC or the proposal process itself should go to FDC staff wikipage. Should it not go to the FDC commmeets wikipage? I have thought we FDC members after we have prepared the recommendation should make a review/evaluation (together with FDC Staff) on how the FDC process have worked, and then need to have the feedback given easily accessible? Anders PS I have now read carefully three proposals, hope to have all reviewed before our Friday meeting, and I am already full of questions that I would like to discuss further and before our SF meeting, like How to view request related to want to learn to become a proper organization (ie not to generate output), how too look at request that really only have a backup of 8 active members (Hungary) - can we see them representing a community? How to handle chapters that have big surpluses from 2011, should that sum not be withdrawn from their request for money 2012? DS ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback page
Please ignore this mail, that was meant only for our FDC internal mail Anders Anders Wennersten skrev 2012-10-09 07:44: In Anasuyas mail sent out, otherwise OK, she mentions comments on the FDC or the proposal process itself should go to FDC staff wikipage. Should it not go to the FDC commmeets wikipage? I have thought we FDC members after we have prepared the recommendation should make a review/evaluation (together with FDC Staff) on how the FDC process have worked, and then need to have the feedback given easily accessible? Anders PS I have now read carefully three proposals, hope to have all reviewed before our Friday meeting, and I am already full of questions that I would like to discuss further and before our SF meeting, like How to view request related to want to learn to become a proper organization (ie not to generate output), how too look at request that really only have a backup of 8 active members (Hungary) - can we see them representing a community? How to handle chapters that have big surpluses from 2011, should that sum not be withdrawn from their request for money 2012? DS ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
