[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund
congratulations lisa! ii must admit i somehow like the cause, but i find it a little challenging to see who gets the money. lets take the example of borealisphilantrophy.org . in their last annual report [1]. they state an income of 50 mio USD. they give out 29 mio USD grants to 390 grantees. they save 14 mio for the future and burn 7 mio USD to so. this means 18''000 USD cost for a single grantee. borealisphilantropy is 6 years old and has given 78 USD grants in total. borealis racial equity in journalism fund gave 2.4 mio to 27 grantees. so the wikimedia contribution of 250'000 USD is 10% of it, for simplicity lets dvide their total 27 grantees by 10 to get 3 grantees supported by wikimedia. borealis cost to select these 3 grantees is 18'000*3 = 50'000 USD, so 200'000 go are left for organisations. these organisations are like qcitymetro.com [2]. donating there leads to glennoaks media LLC [], with a couple of employees. am i doing this right, and it is intended that the money ends up in such organisations? [1] https://borealisphilanthropy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BP_AnnualReport_202.pdf [2] https://qcitymetro.com/about-qcitymetro/ [3] https://www.manta.com/c/mtth022/glennoaks-media-llc rupert On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:54 PM Samuel Klein wrote: > Broadly agreeing with Gergő — our central challenge in this arena is that > the Foundation's total investment in things outside of staffing its own > growing org has historically been quite small — even though we recognize > that WP itself needed well under $1M to take off, and that we need a wide > range of innovative ideas - and recognition for the most creative community > efforts - to have a chance of repeating that in other arenas. The amount we > invest in new outside projects and regional affiliates was modest a decade > ago, and since then has grown more slowly the internal budget. > > So I was glad to see these funds earmarked last year, and the results seem > healthy; at the same time the Foundation seems to be increasing > community-overseen grantmaking, which is essential. The two are not > mutually exclusive. > > S. > > 🌍🌏🌎🌑 > > On Sat., Sep. 11, 2021, 3:14 p.m. Gergő Tisza, wrote: > >> One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the >> Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap >> reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this >> happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely >> restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was >> trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have >> been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And >> the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant >> complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with >> the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of >> conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's >> personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other >> virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the >> board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had >> the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to. >> >> That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and >> participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely >> behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity >> in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity >> fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a >> year ago. >> >> (disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position. >> All of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.) >> >> [1]: >> https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b >> >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand wrote: >> >>> I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the >>> general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered >>> by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to >>> take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here: >>> * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any >>> community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give >>> advance feedback, much less make a decision. >>> * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on >>> what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons >>> analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants >>> made public, as far as I can see. >>> * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I >>> haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general >>> COI policy seems quite la
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund
Broadly agreeing with Gergő — our central challenge in this arena is that the Foundation's total investment in things outside of staffing its own growing org has historically been quite small — even though we recognize that WP itself needed well under $1M to take off, and that we need a wide range of innovative ideas - and recognition for the most creative community efforts - to have a chance of repeating that in other arenas. The amount we invest in new outside projects and regional affiliates was modest a decade ago, and since then has grown more slowly the internal budget. So I was glad to see these funds earmarked last year, and the results seem healthy; at the same time the Foundation seems to be increasing community-overseen grantmaking, which is essential. The two are not mutually exclusive. S. 🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Sat., Sep. 11, 2021, 3:14 p.m. Gergő Tisza, wrote: > One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the > Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap > reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this > happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely > restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was > trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have > been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And > the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant > complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with > the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of > conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's > personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other > virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the > board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had > the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to. > > That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and > participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely > behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity > in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity > fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a > year ago. > > (disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position. All > of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.) > > [1]: > https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand wrote: > >> I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the >> general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered >> by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to >> take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here: >> * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any >> community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give >> advance feedback, much less make a decision. >> * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on >> what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons >> analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants >> made public, as far as I can see. >> * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I >> haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general >> COI policy seems quite lacking for something like this), and given the >> problematic history this Fund in particular has in this area, I must ask: >> Did any staff, trustees, or committee members involved in this process have >> any personal associations to any of the grantee organizations, and if so, >> were they (/would they have been) required to recuse themselves from the >> relevant decisions? >> * The Committee appears to have committed to sharing "terms of each grant >> and updates on their progress" on Meta, per the FAQ. I don't see any links >> to the grant terms. Should we still expect these things? >> >> (A few excerpts from answers given by the recently elected, at the Q&A on >> the topic of funding non-Wikimedia efforts in general: >> "I don’t think WF has any money to spare for any other causes >> irrespective of their worth. There’s an NGO or 100 for any cause, and WF >> cause is exclusively Wikimedia movement support." - Victoria >> "At this time, I'd be reluctant to start funding projects entirely >> unrelated to Wikimedia projects." - Pundit >> "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to support and empower the >> communities of the Wikimedia projects and the projects themselves. Among >> the many worthy goals that one can set, we choose to pursue this one. [...] >> The Wikimedia Foundation looks relatively big and well-resourced (in terms >> of
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund
One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to. That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a year ago. (disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position. All of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.) [1]: https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand wrote: > I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the > general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered > by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to > take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here: > * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any > community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give > advance feedback, much less make a decision. > * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on > what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons > analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants > made public, as far as I can see. > * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I > haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general > COI policy seems quite lacking for something like this), and given the > problematic history this Fund in particular has in this area, I must ask: > Did any staff, trustees, or committee members involved in this process have > any personal associations to any of the grantee organizations, and if so, > were they (/would they have been) required to recuse themselves from the > relevant decisions? > * The Committee appears to have committed to sharing "terms of each grant > and updates on their progress" on Meta, per the FAQ. I don't see any links > to the grant terms. Should we still expect these things? > > (A few excerpts from answers given by the recently elected, at the Q&A on > the topic of funding non-Wikimedia efforts in general: > "I don’t think WF has any money to spare for any other causes irrespective > of their worth. There’s an NGO or 100 for any cause, and WF cause is > exclusively Wikimedia movement support." - Victoria > "At this time, I'd be reluctant to start funding projects entirely > unrelated to Wikimedia projects." - Pundit > "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to support and empower the > communities of the Wikimedia projects and the projects themselves. Among > the many worthy goals that one can set, we choose to pursue this one. [...] > The Wikimedia Foundation looks relatively big and well-resourced (in terms > of money, people, etc.), and it is tempting to use some of them for other > purposes. However, the truth is that the Wikimedia Foundation is not so > big, and the resources are very limited. If we scatter them in too many > different places, we will end up achieving nothing - and the Wikimedia > projects will be the first to pay the price." - Laurentius > I'm not going to try to clip Rosiestep's answer because I feel like a > clipped version would risk being misrepresentative of her position. I > recommend reading the full versions of all four (quite interesting and > nuanced) answers at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A/Question11 > ) > > (There are, of course, more fundamental problems with the Fund, but let's > leave that for another time.) > > Thank you. > > -- Yair Rand > > בתאריך יום ד׳, 8 בספט׳ 2021 ב-10:09 מאת Lisa Gruwell < > lgruw...@wikimedia.org>: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We are
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
On Sat, 11 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Leo Z wrote: > Hope this clear some of your confusion. Which confusion would that be? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VAZYKQXFUITEZVELVJCMYFJVM7ZBYATL/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership-based organization, you don’t pay a membership dues like those of many professional organizations. Henceforth, it is theoretically cannot be an election which would not be legally enforceable without registered voting members, that’s paying members with verified identity. The community wide voting is structured to function like an election, and I have no doubt the board of trustee will follow established convention on this matter. Hope this clear some of your confusion. Best, Leo On Sep 11, 2021, 11:25 PM +0800, Andy Mabbett , wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta wrote: > > > My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia > > Foundation. > > AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be. > The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my > **emphasis**): > > (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated** > through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other > provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected > who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or > other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal > law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a > vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to > this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below. > > while Article IV, Section 3(A) says: > > (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of > talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best > fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by > the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and > inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of > its work. > > Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that > the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse > set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to > reject one or more of them. > > Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of > the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates > to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for > the Board to consider. > > I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am? > > > [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021 > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > https://pigsonthewing.org.uk > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VE5QRABLGRTIODP3Z3ONAHOHDHQYAQ2J/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
Wasn’t this mentioned in the results announcement [1]? > == Waiting for the Board’s appointment == > > While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, > they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need > to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications > outlined in the Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the > country of residence of the candidates. The Board has set a tentative > date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month. The Board also > has approved a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to > allow a smooth transition. Cheers, Lucas [1]: https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/07/results-for-the-most-contended-wikimedia-foundation-board-of-trustees-election/ On 11.09.21 17:23, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta wrote: > >> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia >> Foundation. > > AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be. > The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my > **emphasis**): > >(iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated** > through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other > provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected > who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or > other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal > law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a > vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to > this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below. > > while Article IV, Section 3(A) says: > >(i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of > talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best > fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by > the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and > inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of > its work. > > Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that > the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse > set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to > reject one or more of them. > > Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of > the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates > to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for > the Board to consider. > > I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am? > > > [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws > > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021 > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2P7KTCIHQWPODG3O4SGTFTISJULLKJXI/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta wrote: > My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia > Foundation. AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be. The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my **emphasis**): (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated** through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below. while Article IV, Section 3(A) says: (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of its work. Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to reject one or more of them. Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for the Board to consider. I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am? [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021 -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
