Hi Anasuya,
thank you for your quick response!
Best,
Nicole
On 19 July 2013 01:45, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Nicole,
Happy to help! No, the $6M _doesn't_ include any potential FDC allocation
for WMF in Round 2.
Warmly,
Anasuya
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM,
Itzik:
There are no new requirements in this process, the reports requested
reflect the reports needed by the chapter agreement and the FDC process.
As for format of the 2012 activity report, I suggest you look at chapter
reports http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reports to see what presentation
Thanks Sam for the clarification. I'm sorry to hear this was not discussed
in the board apparently. I hope you will be able to share the outcome of
that discussion to remove any uncertainty that may have remained.
I do agree that there was no major change in how the annual plan was
handled this
Hi Anasuya and Garfield,
please allow me a quick question:
* In 2012-13, the FDC grants (round 1 and 2) were $4.7 M plus the WMF
FDC grant of $4.5 M = a total of $9.2 M.
* In 2013-14, the FDC grants are budgeted with a total of $6 M.
What is unclear to me is if this $6 M are including the FDC
Hi Nicole,
Happy to help! No, the $6M _doesn't_ include any potential FDC allocation
for WMF in Round 2.
Warmly,
Anasuya
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.dewrote:
Hi Anasuya and Garfield,
please allow me a quick question:
* In 2012-13, the FDC grants
Seb35 skrev 2013-07-17 15:55:
I don’t understand: the results of the Round 2 will be April-May 2014,
is it not for the Fiscal Year 2013-14 the non-core WMF will ask
funding? If so, this would mean funds will already be spent for the
major part and the FDC will have no choice than accept the
Thanks Anders for sharing this update. Out of curiosity, was this already
shared elsewhere?
To comprehend the situation fully, what does this mean for the WMF budget
for 2013/2014? I mean, to put things a little in perspective:
* The annual plan was not shared until some days into the year (Sam
Briefly:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Thanks Anders for sharing this update. Out of curiosity, was this already
shared elsewhere?
The details, including the idea that WMF would not get FDC review for
our 2013-14 plan, were news to me.
Currently
Hi Garfield,
I must say I'm surprised from the new requirements. Eligible entities of
last year now need to send by 15 September documents about 2012 - a year
that is totally unrelated to the FDC process that started only this year?
Why it been decided only now?
We are not hiding a thing, but
Hi Itzik,
As far as I understand, the activity report is a requirement in the
chapters agreement, which the WMF is finally starting to take somewhat
seriously. (§8 [1])
But otherwise I agree that the FDC process requires quite a bit of time
spent on it throughout the year.
Best regards,
Bence
Hi Garfield,
Please could you explain why was this message only sent to Internal-l,
given the discussions on this list in April about shutting down Internal-l?
To everyone else on the list: I wasn't sure if any progress had been made
towards re-purposing the internal wiki, so started a
Hi,
Garfield correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember that WMF said that
even an automated translation of the annual report was fine, same was
for the financial report.
Is that still the case or do you need human translation?
As, as far as I know, most entities are already doing an annual
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
Hi Garfield,
I must say I'm surprised from the new requirements. Eligible entities of
last year now need to send by 15 September documents about 2012 - a year
that is totally unrelated to the FDC process that started only
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Thehelpfulone
thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
Please could you explain why was this message only sent to Internal-l,
given the discussions on this list in April about shutting down Internal-l?
Hello THO, if you check the original message again - I believe it
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Thehelpfulone
thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
Please could you explain why was this message only sent to Internal-l,
given the discussions on this list in April about shutting down
On 16 July 2013 16:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Samuel Klein, 16/07/2013 17:32:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Thehelpfulone wrote:
Please could you explain why was this message only sent to Internal-l,
given the discussions on this list in April about shutting
resending, was bounced.
2013/7/16 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
Maybe this has been asked elsewhere already, apologies in that case, but
could someone clarify why the Wikimedia Foundation is not eligible any more
(and did not seem to send a letter of intent) for the FDC process? Does
Lodewijk, 16/07/2013 21:33:
2013/7/16 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
Maybe this has been asked elsewhere already, apologies in that case, but
could someone clarify why the Wikimedia Foundation is not eligible any more
(and did not seem to send a letter of intent) for the FDC process?
FDC have on ongoing dialog and discussion with WMF and the Board on how
to handle WMF, as we in FDC want WMF to be handled a all other entities
as far as is reasonable, recognizing some unique differences between WMF
and other entities.
In this discussion that is still ongoing, we have agreed
19 matches
Mail list logo
