Hi Sam,
first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's
appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already
little leeway for significant change.
This probably means that there is something wrong with the process
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Hi Sam,
first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's
appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already
little leeway for
Hello again,
A few comments inline:
Leslie Carr writes:
As someone who works for the foundation and has had to deal with
budget issues in engineering (though this is my personal opinion)
the budget process is already incredibly long, drawn out, and stressful.
This is a problem that we should
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
into getting input into the budget development process from members of
the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to
dedicate a
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Nathan wrote:
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I
don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources
into getting input into the budget development process from members of
the community. This is one area where
Steven Walling, 23/04/2013 17:58:
I fully agree.
My team, Editor Engagement Experiments, was one of the few submitted to the
FDC for approval.[1] We got almost no substantive questions or comments on
the Talk page or mailing lists from community members about our budget. [...]
That the FDC
Steven,
I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a
thesis that — that's the impression I'm getting — the community cannot
provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware,
community members
from my point of view, it would be really great if there was more feedback
from the community on the FDC proposals, but I also understand that reading
detailed proposals is not necessarily something that many active members
have the necessary time for.
I think it is clear that the community can
Exactly. The community is involved in the strategic planning process,
and has the opportunity to review the spending and changes over time,
both through the visible elements of annual planning and the annual
reports. In addition, there is (obviously) pretty robust discussion
here when questions
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own right.
It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the movement.
And any information shared in a lookahead document would be at a high
level; not
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own
right.
It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the
movement.
I do
Hi Sam,
thanks for the message, I appreciate hearing from a Board member at long
last.
I agree that it might be a good idea to collect feedback during the year
(is there actually any page that could be used for this purpose on
Meta?) — but I think that it also needs to be mentioned that it's
Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 22/04/2013 21:57:
I had a look at the questions that were asked to you during the
open meeting in Milan
(https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-meeting-with-the-board),
but I was unable to find any related to the budget issue.
I confirm there was none, I noticed the
Hello Tomasz,
We do need a more active public discussion about the WMF budget. Both
before and after it is approved. (The best input to the next year's
plan is often input on what is happening in the current year; and
continuous feedback that reaches some resolution is more helpful than
a burst
On 9 April 2013 13:45, Andrew Gray wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
They might follow this, though I am afraid that there is very little
point in discussing a budget that has already been aproved. This
timeline includes all events up to July 1, the day that the 2013/2014
Hi there,
I was reading some fundraising-related pages today, and stumbled upon
the planning cycle for the 2013/2014 fiscal year budget at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Part_II-_2012-13_Year-to-Date_and_Lookahead_to_Planning_for_2013-14.pdfpage=10.
I noticed that there is
Tomasz W. Kozłowski, 09/04/2013 13:18:
Hi there,
I was reading some fundraising-related pages today, and stumbled upon
the planning cycle for the 2013/2014 fiscal year budget at
On 9 April 2013 12:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple
question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want
community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in
total privacy?
For
On 9 April 2013 12:45, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve
it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final;
it promptly goes into...
It seems that applying to the FDC for funding periods already begun has
been outruled going forward:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#fundingperiodinthepast.
If I read the FAQ correctly.
I am not sure if the WMF is giving itself and exception?
Best regards,
20 matches
Mail list logo
