Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members. IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale. Lila On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Based on what I heard from Anasuya and members of the FDC over the years, I feel that asking the FDC to take on the WMF budget is too much of a scope expansion, unless a third round of reviews is added each year and is dedicated to the WMF budget. The only realistic alternative that I can see is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wrote: > Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar > composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include > some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I meant User:Varnent. :) I blame the turkey chemicals. :p -greg (User:Varnent) > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > > Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the > board - unless the entire board is on that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about that. Pine On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W" wrote: > > The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any case,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

yes, and I agree that this is a very good idea to ponder. It addresses a couple of problems at once (including a major one, of FDC ability and capacity to tackle WMF as well). dj On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > One of the things proposed during our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I think the 3rd party review might work, although it might be costly in terms of consulting fees. As a part of the 3rd party review, I hope that there would be an analysis of the costs and benefits of moving WMF to a more economical location than San Francisco. Pine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I wondered if anyone from FDC is going to respond to this? On 26 Nov 2015 17:04, "Nicola Zeuner" wrote: > Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community > discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of > community funds.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride wrote: > I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I > thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hoi Gerard, I'm sorry that they came across to you as weasel words - they weren't meant to be, they were meant to be an explanation of how the FDC operates. It wasn't a refusal to accept responsibility - the FDC is responsible for its recommendations, but the WMF board then decides on whether

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >>Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget >>allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do >>its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC? > >I hope

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

t; -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:58 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. Then there was a significant regression with 2014-2015 both in terms of the review period and in terms of WMF's responsiveness to questions; some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W wrote: > For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with > the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of dropping

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of the FDC, not an attempt to weasel. Perhaps something was lost in translation? Fae On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen" wrote: > Hoi, > Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hoi, Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I can't find something wrong with Pundit's argument based opinions and explanations. Kind regards Ziko 2015-11-26 12:33 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in > translation. You either have an opinion and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it wit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Dariusz, without speaking on behalf of the FDC, and only my own opinion - I don't think the question is if the FDC will recommend how much money the WMF need to get - as the fact that if they will enter the FDC process, under the SAME requirements as other affiliates (the requirement for a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

hi Itzik, the idea that we've been discussing for a while has been introducing a part of WMF budget ("non-core") into the FDC process. The whole is not viable for various reasons, but a part - sure. I also agree that the FDC may be a catalyst of introducing more transparency, better and SMARTer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of community funds. That's the beauty of a community reviewed process. However, statements asserting that we did not provide specific information force us to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round. Michael

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the > Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Somewhat, yes. The process for community consultations and feedback is in the works,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you all for your time, attention and care. /a On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on > this funding round. From

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hi MZMcBride, > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the > Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that? They are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 25 Nov 2015 03:53, "Risker" wrote: > > Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or > less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated > "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which > are not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Il 25/nov/2015 05:01 "MZMcBride" ha scritto: > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the > Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Anne, do you imagine to publish income per person that way? On Nov 25, 2015 04:53, "Risker" wrote: > Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or > less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated > "floating capacity" and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Not speaking for Anne here, but in general I think all Wikimedia movement-funded compensation should be published. This is already done in a number of Wikimedia grant proposals, and I believe that almost all government agencies in the U.S. are required to provide extensive data about their use of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Actually, as an employee of the WMF, Asaf may be able to contribute here. Asaf, this is an issue that you feel the organization you that pays you to help fulfill its mission must address. How are you going to lead within the WMF to make sure it gets addressed? Best. ,Wil On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Dear Risker, Gerard et al., Just a quick correction: WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

matanya moses wrote: >tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant >requests have now been published at: >https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/14803740 > >The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help >make decisions about how to effectively

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hi Craig, You are right, this has been an ongoing request for years. This year we did many infrastructure updates for financial planning. However we missed some objectives. I take responsibility, specifically for the very short community feedback window on the annual plan this year. We fixed this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ wrote: Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata - that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 24 November 2015 at 07:46, Isarra Yos wrote: > I had a go at simplifying: > >> We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to try to >> do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at what's >> happened in previous years in order to see

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ wrote: > Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin > to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of > what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way. > Yes. I encourage everyone to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hi Lila, I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing issue for years. What is required now is not more going around in circles with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hello Gerard - The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this answer feels like a "kiss off". > On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > > We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and > are committed to the 30 day review

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Thank you FDC. Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That is nice to see. I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

On 23 November 2015 at 21:04, Pine W wrote: > Thank you FDC. > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That > is nice to see. > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems > the FDC seemed to find with the org's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

I had a go at simplifying: > We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to try to do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at what's happened in previous years in order to see where things fell short then, comparing that to what the FDC standards say