Hi, Deryck.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I look forward to working with WMHK on a
suitable plan for development (even right now, though I'm guessing WMHK has
its hands full till after Wikimania).
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote:
Dear Deryck,
many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not
assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will
not die out completely.
One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your
personal capacity, but representing the
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
I think this exact point is often overlooked.
I actually have a fairly trivial way to look
hi Erlend,
I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns,
in my view, and I would like to address them.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote:
However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed
funding
Hey Deryck,
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
But you say we … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a
discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?
I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could
use in parallel if FDC assessment.
But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it
seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply
to the FDC as a preliminary
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating we want, that is not that
same as together with the grant giver we agreed… I cannot overstate the
importance of the difference between the two…
People don't instantly agree
2013/4/30 Charles Andres charles.andres.w...@gmail.com:
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could
use in parallel if FDC assessment.
But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it
seems that chapters peer review should be
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
some way
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
outcome. For no-one.
And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
use a new thread!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point
As I heard in Milan
Long time staffing, must go trough FDC
And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management
(I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter
board
But what do you expect if they have day time
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time
or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and
paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some
basis for a future growth.
WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the
hi Jeromy-Yu,
thank you for sharing this personal note.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan
jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote:
As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck
we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit :
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
use a new thread!
Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for
his effort
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his
effort and involvement.
And boy... is that sad :(
Flo
Agreed, and
Florence Devouard wrote:
I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in
France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things
together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.).
Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund
the first employee.
The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time
and energy. This is a process everyone
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
might also have played a role for the FDC's
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to
evaluate the
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the
topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff
and FDC members in their comments do.
Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
To: dger...@gmail.com
CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to
everyone
As I said in my previous email:
* Most of the chapters
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each
member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This
ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during
the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment.
And
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
To: dger...@gmail.com
CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
[...]
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...]
Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
(which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
it discovered they were not?
When the FDC recommendations were
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.
Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an
algorithm but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.
These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the
project.
This has
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
*personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
Actually the information how
Deryck,
it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you
as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and
contributions are very valuable to the movement.
It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and
FDC funding when it
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either…
Jan-Bart
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
Tom
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
Jan-Bart
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why
it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there,
: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
to everyone
To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF
Hey
So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I
would like to ask you something.
Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the
remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants
Hi Markus,
I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant
once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out
of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better…
And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review
I hope a few remarks are valid.
As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application
during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH.
The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is
understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to
achieve meaningful results
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send
funds away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the
hands of the reporting and
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote:
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send
funds away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote:
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
Asians aswell from there.
India, anyone?
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are
you all posted there?
;-)
Erlend, WMNO
2013/4/30 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no
wrote:
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you
are to our movement and you have my sincere respect.
I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise,
and take a moment for doubt and serious review.
Fae (mobile)
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
Responses:
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always
going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time
to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make
volunteers more comfortable
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic
that future generations figure this out
On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole
Erik Moeller wrote:
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions:
[...]
Thanks for the links.
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making
information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are
made. Is
: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement,
and a parting remark to everyone
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when
55 matches
Mail list logo
