i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially
how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
rupert.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede
jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Lodewijk,
So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view
From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:01:49 +
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation,
Round 1, 2012-13
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially
how FDC calculated
Hey Lodewijk,
No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were
to be sure I understood correctly what you meant.
I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the
FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so
chapters can improve from
Dear Rupert,
in short: we've been using two main reference points. One was the previous
year costs (and trying not to choke by exceeding 120% growth by far), the
other was size of the entities.
Depending on the feedback from this round, the FDC may decide to change the
model of posting the
Hi Jan-Bart,
I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be
subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who
else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that
anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl
Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created
earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in
this first round,
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
organization
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot
would happen...
On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
meaningful operations
Hey Thomas,
I think I can take this one. I think that the FDC has expressed that its up to
the WCA to determine its own financing model, while at the same time indicating
that the membership fees model might not be the optimal solution for this, and
that there are better ways)
At the same
hi Nathan,
other WCA-related costs are clearly pertaining to the fact of WCA being
organized. People need to travel, meet, etc. to make it happen. Just as
Thomas mentions, there needs to be funding for stuff that is not
operational yet, but being organized.
Membership fees though are not such a
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
Hi everyone,
I send this mail as a representative of Wikimedia France.
Wikimedia France acknowledges and agrees with the FDC decision.
The arguments provided with the decision makes sense to us.
Wikimedia France will submit, if possible, a request for the round 2.
On behalf of Wikiemdia France
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would
be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example,
take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC
come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of
hi Lodewijk,
I think it is clear that not trusting them with the money was not the
case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more
arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as
the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to
have those discussions summed up
Hi Christophe,
I would like to see that
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains
a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made.
Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be
improved. Not only
Lodewijk, 15/11/2012 23:28:
Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. [...]
Don't worry, reading the entities' proposals and associated talks
Hey Lodewijk,
So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the situation
and present it as the general view. You cite a bad precedent and lack of
sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and YOU feel that
there should be more detail, that does not mean
20 matches
Mail list logo
