[Wikimedia-l] Wiki Loves Africa : crowdfunding and contest last few days
Hello everyone This is crowdfunding season :) We are running the last few days of the Wiki Loves Africa Cuisine photographic contest. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wiki_Loves_Africa And we need your help in... three possible ways. First, feel free to contribute more pictures to the contest... as long as it fits with this year theme: African Cuisine ! The theme encompass the * foods * dishes * crops and husbandry (or more generally, growth of ingredients) * Traditions and rituals around food * cooking methods and processing * ustensils * food markets as well as supermarkets or informal traders * food festivals * culinary events * culinary art * famine food and any other issues related to cuisine on the African continent. Second, please feel free to help categorize the images already uploaded. Help translate descriptions when provided (many were provided in arabic for example). And help use these pictures to illustrate Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Wiki_Loves_Africa_2014 Third... we launched a crowdfunding project to fund the gifts that will be offered to the winners. If you feel like giving a few dollars... https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-fund-prizes-for-wiki-loves-africa-contest/x/9055616 If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. All the best, Anthere ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters. However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly. If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine. Best Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com napisał(a): While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing. What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then resulted in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website. The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard. Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different. I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point). We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM NB Wikidata is underfunded On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: As Nathan I see no contradiction. I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to get that money for general use) But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use Anders Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area. Can you
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Probably it has not been considered that the general assembly of a chapter is still a stakeholder. In this case, for a better access to external funds, several chapters may evaluate if it makes sense to move their legal status from a no profit association to a foundation where the old no profit association may continue to be a simple stakeholder. In this case there will be nonsense to continue to have a general assembly and probably neither a bylaws. regards On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-25 13:49 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk, the consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter. That's a very good point. but we can rely that entities stay true on their bylaws that, having been examined as part of the affiliation process should all point towards the movement mission (in their own contextualized wa). In other words this is when AffComm work kicks in (in the long term). C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
I can also read that: Yet the growth of *non-English communities* and project material is critical for a vigorous and energetic long-term future for the projects, and indeed, it is one of the top priorities developed by the movement through our strategic planning process. In addition I can read in the question of external funds that: It should also mean that *movement entities with the ability to fundraise independently*, should seek to diversify their funding base in order to create a sustainable, scalable strategy for their own growth. In my opinion there is a misreading of the FDC in these guidelines because it seems that the FDC agrees that the chapters have organized themselves as community supporter and not as fundraiser. So the suggestion of looking for external funds should be valid for chapter with the ability to fundraise independently. It's a good principle, but this principle asks also to evaluate if a chapter is sufficiently mature to do it. Sorry, everytime I read this guidance I see no real support in your general principles. regards On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Wikimedia_Nederland If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage: «The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals.» (see also what I said in my previous email) (it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational costs) C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?
Just following up, Has WMNL now received the sought information? sincerely, Kim Bruning On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:42:01AM +0100, Lodewijk wrote: It seems everyone agrees it is an important method (although I'm not 100% sure that the US based people running the fundraiser fully comprehend - I am assuming this is the case), but there seems to be some reason why the WMF chooses to not make this option easily available. A reason they choose not to disclose, but to be fuzzy about. I'm very sorry about this, and as Liam says, this fits in a trend with the Russian people no longer being allowed to donate. Maybe the two are connected, but this is all speculation. I'm sorry to see these steps back from the more open attitude there was a few years back. It feels very much that we are, as a community, being fed canned press answers. But then, maybe there's a real need for that and there's a huge legal threat to making it easy to donate through bank transfer that cannot be disclosed... Best, Lodewijk On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: To amplify: Paying (business) taxes in The Netherlands now pretty much requires electronic payment to an IBAN Account; a.k.a. it is (now) the standard, default, baseline way to make payments at all. After registering a business, the very next action is to open an (IBAN) account. All extant dutch accounts that predate IBAN have been converted to IBAN. All administration systems (must(!)) support IBAN. If you want to do business in the Netherlands, you need to support IBAN. Note that many (most?) dutch citizens do not have credit cards or paypal accounts. Further, IBAN is standardized throughout the euro-zone. iDEAL is nice to have and important. IBAN is a minimal baseline requirement. sincerely, Kim On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:42:31PM +0100, Walter Vermeir wrote: Op 17-11-14 om 20:28 schreef Lodewijk: you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page Historically the structure of bank account numbers are very different from country to country. And making transfers from one bank account to an other bank account, especially internationally, are/where complex and expensive. There is still a lot of room of improvement but nevertheless it has never been so easy and cheap to do international transfers as now. The IBAN system - International Bank Account Number - is active in a fair chunk of the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number#Adoption Inside the EURO-zone , 19 countries, ?? 337 million Europeans , people can make a bank transfer to an EURO-zone IBAN bank account without additional expenses. Many more outside the EURO-zone can easy make international payments to an IBAN bank account. That is not free ... but paypal is certainly not free also. The costs are just deducted from your donation. The WMF has always has been a huge fan of payment by credit cards. Understandable, the WMF is founded in the country of the Credit card. But that can make you blind to the fact that other people are used to total other payment systems. A couple of years ago I discovered that there where still people using cheques in France. That came as a total surprise to me. I remember my dad using cheques 30 years ago. I never came in to contact with a cheque since then. To my knowledge cheques where long gone. History. Extinct. But ... when you have the financial business concept of the WMF - when you need money beg for it - the donation channel should be tailer made for the specific common way of payment used by the person who is so good to be willing to make an donation. Walter ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org)
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Ilario, nobody has said that chapters should become fundraiser entities. We have been very emphatic that the main focus of APG proposals should be delivering impact in the projects and we maintain that. What we have said is that chapters that have the opportunities to fundraise and reduce their dependence from the FDC, should take those opportunities. But we have never said that fundraising should be the main purpose of a chapter. Most APG grantees are already doing this. With some particular exceptions, all chapters have some level of external funding. Some chapters have staff particularly devoted to this, but there are some that have done it without fundraising staff (for example, Estonia). Other chapters have explained in the past that external funding is very difficult to find given their national and organizational context. The FDC has evaluated these situations and has accepted to give all funding for those entities (i.e., Argentina). Everything will depend on the context of each chapter, each country and each level of maturity. 2014-11-26 9:33 GMT-03:00 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: I can also read that: Yet the growth of *non-English communities* and project material is critical for a vigorous and energetic long-term future for the projects, and indeed, it is one of the top priorities developed by the movement through our strategic planning process. In addition I can read in the question of external funds that: It should also mean that *movement entities with the ability to fundraise independently*, should seek to diversify their funding base in order to create a sustainable, scalable strategy for their own growth. In my opinion there is a misreading of the FDC in these guidelines because it seems that the FDC agrees that the chapters have organized themselves as community supporter and not as fundraiser. So the suggestion of looking for external funds should be valid for chapter with the ability to fundraise independently. It's a good principle, but this principle asks also to evaluate if a chapter is sufficiently mature to do it. Sorry, everytime I read this guidance I see no real support in your general principles. regards On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1#Wikimedia_Nederland If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage: «The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals.» (see also what I said in my previous email) (it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational costs) C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters. However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly. If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine. Best Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com napisał(a): While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing. What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then resulted in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website. The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard. Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different. I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point). We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM NB Wikidata is underfunded On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: As Nathan I see no contradiction. I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to get that money for general use) But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use Anders Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
What, with Cheddar, Red Leicester, Stilton, and other superior cheeses? G, D R On Nov 25, 2014 4:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Beaudouin pierre.beaudo...@wikimedia.fr wrote: We started an English version of the campaign [1] -- Pyb Links: -- [1] http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/wikicheese ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
Wensleydale, you mean On 26 Nov 2014 17:57, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What, with Cheddar, Red Leicester, Stilton, and other superior cheeses? G, D R On Nov 25, 2014 4:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Beaudouin pierre.beaudo...@wikimedia.fr wrote: We started an English version of the campaign [1] -- Pyb Links: -- [1] http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/wikicheese ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What, with Cheddar, Red Leicester, Stilton, and other superior cheeses? Wiki Loves Cheese 2015? Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective. Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again. At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong. Best, Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters. However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly. If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine. Best Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com napisał(a): While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing. What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then resulted in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website. The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard. Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different. I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why is bank transfer no longer possible?
To clarify: I was looking for information from my capacity as a volunteer - I don't know if WMNL did or did not receive any information whatsoever. I can only say that I did not receive a satisfying answer - but that should be no surprise. Best, Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Just following up, Has WMNL now received the sought information? sincerely, Kim Bruning On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 08:42:01AM +0100, Lodewijk wrote: It seems everyone agrees it is an important method (although I'm not 100% sure that the US based people running the fundraiser fully comprehend - I am assuming this is the case), but there seems to be some reason why the WMF chooses to not make this option easily available. A reason they choose not to disclose, but to be fuzzy about. I'm very sorry about this, and as Liam says, this fits in a trend with the Russian people no longer being allowed to donate. Maybe the two are connected, but this is all speculation. I'm sorry to see these steps back from the more open attitude there was a few years back. It feels very much that we are, as a community, being fed canned press answers. But then, maybe there's a real need for that and there's a huge legal threat to making it easy to donate through bank transfer that cannot be disclosed... Best, Lodewijk On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: To amplify: Paying (business) taxes in The Netherlands now pretty much requires electronic payment to an IBAN Account; a.k.a. it is (now) the standard, default, baseline way to make payments at all. After registering a business, the very next action is to open an (IBAN) account. All extant dutch accounts that predate IBAN have been converted to IBAN. All administration systems (must(!)) support IBAN. If you want to do business in the Netherlands, you need to support IBAN. Note that many (most?) dutch citizens do not have credit cards or paypal accounts. Further, IBAN is standardized throughout the euro-zone. iDEAL is nice to have and important. IBAN is a minimal baseline requirement. sincerely, Kim On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:42:31PM +0100, Walter Vermeir wrote: Op 17-11-14 om 20:28 schreef Lodewijk: you back to the credit card page) or even via regular bank transfer (using an IBAN) in the Netherlands. The donation page Historically the structure of bank account numbers are very different from country to country. And making transfers from one bank account to an other bank account, especially internationally, are/where complex and expensive. There is still a lot of room of improvement but nevertheless it has never been so easy and cheap to do international transfers as now. The IBAN system - International Bank Account Number - is active in a fair chunk of the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_Account_Number#Adoption Inside the EURO-zone , 19 countries, ?? 337 million Europeans , people can make a bank transfer to an EURO-zone IBAN bank account without additional expenses. Many more outside the EURO-zone can easy make international payments to an IBAN bank account. That is not free ... but paypal is certainly not free also. The costs are just deducted from your donation. The WMF has always has been a huge fan of payment by credit cards. Understandable, the WMF is founded in the country of the Credit card. But that can make you blind to the fact that other people are used to total other payment systems. A couple of years ago I discovered that there where still people using cheques in France. That came as a total surprise to me. I remember my dad using cheques 30 years ago. I never came in to contact with a cheque since then. To my knowledge cheques where long gone. History. Extinct. But ... when you have the financial business concept of the WMF - when you need money beg for it - the donation channel should be tailer made for the specific common way of payment used by the person who is so good to be willing to make an donation. Walter ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2014 Evaluation Survey Results Posted!
*tl;dr: *You can find the results of the Wikimania 2014 Evaluation Survey on Wikimedia Commons *[1]* Greetings, Today we posted a slide deck summarizing data from the Wikimania evaluation survey from this year’s event in London. The survey was a collaborative effort of the Wikimania Conference and Hackathon organizers and the WMF Learning and Evaluation team. Conferences and hackathons had been identified as key programs to develop evaluation insight. Given the opportunity to collaborate on an evaluation survey, WMF team members partnered with conference and hackathon organizers to provide the technical support to complete the survey project. This first survey offers a look into the processes and outcomes of the conference. It is intended as a means for participants to share what they got out of the conference and a platform to collect information on how we can improve future conferences and their evaluation. We have released a basic data summary and meta page with brief highlights of the survey and link to a pdf slide deck published to Commons *[1]*. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_London_Survey_Results == Methodology == * Online survey via Qualtrics *[2]* * Data collection: ** August 10th – September 15th, 2014 ** Conference participants: 1520 ** Survey Respondents: n=792 (52% of conference participants) === The Conference Overall === * Participants were highly satisfied with the conference overall. * 91% of respondents rated the conference as Good (48%) or Excellent (43%) * 87% indicated their expectations had been met (48%) or exceeded (39%) * The most named benefits of attending Wikimania were meeting people and finding out about projects. Favorite talks: 1. Creative Ways to Alienate Women Online: A How To Guide for Wikipedians (by Steven Walling and Maryana Pinchuk) 2. Which Law Applies to Wikipedia (by Tobias Lutzi) 3. Raph Koster: A Theory of Fun 4. Jack Andraka 5. Education (by members of the Wiki Ed Foundation and Education Collaborative) Please visit the page *[3]* for basic details or follow the links to the slide deck *[1]*. The complete survey data are available upon request and will be used by both the conference and the hackathon planning groups for their use in planning for future events and their evaluation. In addition, the Learning and Evaluation team will also work to review and incorporate these results, along with evaluation data from other conferences, in the second round of Program Evaluation reports currently in progress. The conference financial report is also underway, however, it will also be available sometime in the new year. Keep an eye out for these additional points of reporting to become available in early 2015! On behalf of all who have collaborated in this evaluation survey, those who helped with its development, the 792 participants who completed it, and those involved in the its analysis, and now, interpretation: thank you for your time, attention, and support! We are happy to be part in this collective learning about Wikimedia conferences and hackathons. Your questions are welcome, and encouraged, on the talk page. *María Cruz * \\ Community Coordinator, PED Team \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. mc...@wikimedia.org | : @marianarra_ https://twitter.com/marianarra_ *[1] Summary Slide Deck* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2014_Participant_Survey_-_Data_Summary.pdf *[2] Survey Items* https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1b3Qp-l8HU4WYFX2lyACLsXAcd1hlEX3q1PTmQ5zxp2c/edit?usp=sharing *[3] Overview Page* https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/Wikimania_London_Survey_Results ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective. Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again. At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong. Best, Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters. However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly. If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine. Best Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com napisał(a): While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing. What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive
[Wikimedia-l] Invitation to WMF November 2014 Metrics Activities Meeting: Thursday, December 4, 19:00 UTC
Dear all, The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 7 PM UTC (11 AM PST). The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be broadcast as a live YouTube stream. The current structure of the meeting is: * Welcoming recent hires * Update and QA with the Executive Director, if available * Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also specialized reports and analytic * Review of financials * Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on highest priority initiatives Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further information about how to participate. We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting. Thank you, Praveena -- Praveena Maharaj Executive Assistant to the VP of Product Strategy and the VP of Engineering Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example. But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way. So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'. Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective. Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again. At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong. Best, Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters. However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than
[Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png Gah. Yes, I understand that more obnoxious banners means more money faster and presumably a shorter overall campaign. I also understand that we're only punishing certain large wikis with these banners and that these banners typically set a cookie so that they'll only appear once for most users. Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
These banners are problematic in that they are likely to trigger automatic filtering of Wikimedia sites by certain types/brands of net nanny/anti-spam/security software - including software used by many employers, schools and libraries. And once the sites are filtered/blocked, it will be difficult if not impossible for many users (particularly if they don't have administrator permissions for the site) to lift the filter/block. Getting donations is not more important than keeping the sites accessible. Please reconsider. Risker/Anne On 26 November 2014 at 15:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png Gah. Yes, I understand that more obnoxious banners means more money faster and presumably a shorter overall campaign. I also understand that we're only punishing certain large wikis with these banners and that these banners typically set a cookie so that they'll only appear once for most users. Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:33 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Still, there's an element of basic human decency that must be incorporated into our banner designs. Obscuring the page content is not cool. Pop-ups (even ones that stay in the same window) are not cool. MZMcBride I couldn't see the banner in your screenshot link - it appears that Wikipedia has sent your computer has a virus or something ... a big pop-up asking for money!!! (Some people actually write to us @OTRS saying similar things - an indicator that it may not be the best way.) -- Ryan User:Rjd0060 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Gerard, we hear you. On the other hand, we have the example of Wikimedia France, which has recently told us about a highly innovative event that features community outreach, content creation, editing workshop, and sufficient fundraising to pay for itself. We know that, despite the issues of payment processing, several European chapters have been receiving their national equivalent of Gift Aid for direct donations, and it is worthwhile for others to look into this and see if there are opportunities there. (There might not be, because this is location-specific.) Some countries have government-supported opportunities with relatively lightweight application processes to improve digital content in certain fields, whether photography, literature, or targeted groups. Wikidata would not have come to be without external funding, even though a significant portion of its initial and continued funding is supported by grants directly from the WMF or as part of the FDC recommendations. At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive. We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to grantee. Risker/Anne On 26 November 2014 at 15:06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective. Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared. The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example. But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way. So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'. Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective. Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
A sidenote: raising funds is probably a better term - fundraising is historically in Wikimedia often used to refer specifically to the small donors. A process which chapters have been barred from unfortunately, and which faces some interesting struggles on the WMF-side right now. But I guess it's bound to be confusing. Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared. The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example. But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way. So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'. Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time). But
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
On 26 November 2014 at 20:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banni%C3%A8rePopUpWikipedia2014.png Gah. Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year? - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
On 26 November 2014 at 18:07, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: Wiki Loves Cheese 2015? Sorry, American cousins, cheese in cans doesn't count ;-) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality
Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ sincerely, Kim ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes that arise from this non-professional system, including a dedicated ombudsperson for the case(s). It’s worth noting that the ombudsperson role has existed since the start of the FDC - the role is there to receive, investigate and document complaints about the FDC process, see: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Ombudsperson_role,_expectations,_and_selection_process https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Ombudsperson_role,_expectations,_and_selection_process for details. The appeals to the board process has also existed from the start. Neither are new processes that have been started since the creation of the FDC, as your comment implies. Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)
David Gerard wrote: Didn't we have the lightbox argument last year? Probably. Or the year before. Or the year before that. I did say (again) in the subject line. ;-) There are various discussions popping up across Wikimedia about these banners. It didn't help that a bug earlier this week caused logged-in users to be hit with them as well. Talk about eating your own dog food. The French Wikipedia held what appears to be a straw poll with overwhelming denouncement of the banner. It's also been repeatedly described as a phishing attempt. Complaints and confusion aren't uncommon during any annual fundraiser, but I think we can and should hold ourselves to a higher standard when begging people for money. As pointed out on Meta-Wiki's Wikimedia Forum by Jules78120, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines is pretty clear that the (primary) goal is that banners be as unobtrusive as possible. I wrote this in May 2011, I believe deliberately outside of the annual fundraising that takes place in December so that we could have a calm and reasonable discussion about appropriate CentralNotice usage. Sigh. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Well, I would say that probably the chapters are looking for external funds not because WMF is suggesting to do it, but probably because it's too much hard to follow the interpretations of the FDC. Every year that a chapter applies for a FDC grant is like to go to the sybil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl) because even if the plan has been adapted to the last strategies of WMF, it's difficult to define what will be the *new* interpretation of the FDC. It's not a bad solution to find external funds, but it's critical when the percentage of this external funding is relatively large. Speaking about a trendy word: the impact in a chapter is substantial. As soon the chapters will fund externally for a relevant percentage of their budget, it means that the main strategy of the chapters will follow what the donors (big or small donors) will ask. So the workload is not only to find finds but also to manage stakeholders. Yes, this will reduce the risks... but the risks of the variability of the FDC answer! Now we come back to the main question: a) it's an usual answer that a no profit association that would fund their own organization may do a fundraising targeting on small donors, but it means that the initial funds will be spent to fund the next fundraising campaign, in general it is suggested that the first years are spent only to finance the next fundraising. In addition I would add that it's really stupid to be concurrent of WMF in the main fields where WMF collects its funds b) a second solution is to look for big sponsors and for charitable foundations, but it means a lot of time to acquire the reliance of these entities and in addition these foundations or donors will impose their own constraints, its' really difficult that they will open the wallet only because someone is named Wikimedia X c) there are also call for projets done by local governements but it means anyway a big workload to follow the selections and to find partners and so on So I am not saying that it's worst to look for external funds but that: a) it cannot be done in few months (to be a serious external fundraising) b) it makes sense to do it if this will be the strategy for the following years because *any change costs* Yes, there are a lot of opportunities and in my specific case I would say that Switzerland offers good opportunities also to fund projects outside Switzerland because the legal system in Switzerland is designed for *international* projects. The problem is to change the priorities and to spent the following months to look for funds. Probably all members of the FDC are too young (as wikimedians) to remember that the principle of WMF two or three years ago was to focus the organization of the chapters in the community support and in the projects. This is a resume of what was said by the board of trusteee in wikimedia conference in Berlin in the 2012 about the request of chapters to be payment processors (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Documentation/Day_2/board-chapters#Question_time). Personally I find the suggestions of the FDC in conflict with what was said two years ago. The question is to define clearly a strategy for the following years because in any of these three cases a longtime strategy is required in order to find a good fundraising solution. It means that next years the FDC *cannot* evaluate the work of the chapters with the current parameters and measures because it's not honest to ask for a re-arrangement of the priorities, and to ask that the chapters will have in charge the risks and the costs of this change and in addition that they have also to be evaluated with an outdated system of evaluation (in comparison with the current suggestions of the FDC). I agree that the Global South may have some difficulties to raise funds locally, but I disagree that the evaluation of a project done in the Global South can have the same evaluation of a project done in the Global North which is financed with external funds. Regards On 26.11.2014 22:01, Risker wrote: At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive. We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all
It's an encyclopaedia, the cheeses don’t have to be superior. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andy Mabbett Sent: 26 November 2014 07:56 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all What, with Cheddar, Red Leicester, Stilton, and other superior cheeses? G, D R On Nov 25, 2014 4:35 PM, Pierre-Yves Beaudouin pierre.beaudo...@wikimedia.fr wrote: We started an English version of the campaign [1] -- Pyb Links: -- [1] http://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/wikicheese ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4223/8632 - Release Date: 11/25/14 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hoi, When the WMF staff is only involved in advising local fundraising, then the WMF staff is considered superior. The actual situation is that the WMF would do well and expect superior local knowledge and use it for its fundraising. It should compensate the chapters for this. It would do well when chapters get a share of the locally raised funds. BECAUSE it is also a vehicle for raising awareness The notion that fundraising is apart from how the relations are is very artificial and it results in poor understanding. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 22:29, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared. The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example. But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way. So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'. Lodewijk On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good. My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to the community that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this. In discussion we hear about the community about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I don't quite agree. Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC funds allocation recommendation is up
Hello dear all, this is not a response to any specific mails on this thread, just a few thoughts from my side. I am not very heavily involved in the FDC process, what I did was, well, as one of the board member decided to create this process and one of the advisory group member observed the feedbacks, and I read a few of the mails in this thread. By all means, I would not call myself expert in this matter. I have a very high respect for those people who apply for funds throw the FDC process and I have a very high respect for the FDC members. I know most of these people (both the applicants and the FDC members) and I believe in their good will, their honest, their belief that what they are doing is helping the movement and the effort they invested. Now back to the matter. One of the issue that the advisory group reviewed in May this year was that the FDC is a very hard and, because of this, a very expensive process. Every partner organization that apply for FDC has an annual planning, this alone is an organizational effort that eat up fund that do not go into program. I know from the WMF that the annual planning is very expensive. The whole organization is involved and the entire process lasted (anyway when I was in board) half a year. One can do a rough estimation of manhours invested into this process and then put a price on it. My rough estimation would go into 4 digits, maybe five. Partner organizations have less (alone because they have less C-level management), but I believe the proportion would be the same. Atop of this partner organizations who apply for FDC have to do an extra effort. I cannot say how much this extra effort is, but from my remote observation and my impression from the frustration and accounts in the list I would say it is not a small one. I have a guess, but it is totally subjective. Maybe one of the chapters can provide an example of insight? All these costs go into organization and off from program. The anual planning part is unavoidable, the FDC part is atop. This makes a malignant feedback: More organizational cost makes the efficiency worse, and that makes it more necessary to make more effort in the presentation and reasoning, which means more FDC effort. We need to break up this circle. The advisory group made two recommendations this spring: The first one is to make repeating applications easier, and the other is to allow applications for more than one year. My impression from this thread is that either these recommendations didn't catch, or they were not implemented in this round. If the last case is true (not implemented) I would like to ask FDC to take these recommendations seriously and implement them. If the first case is true (implemented but doesn't catch), then I would think that we need to think about this again. Can someone clarify which case is more the reality? One of the critics about the fund dissimination as a total that catchs my eyes again is how unbalanced the distribution is. As I said I know most of the people who expressed their frustration here. I know that they are all reasonable people. So, if let's say the total funding is declining, I believe that the outcry would not be so loud as that we currently have the situation that the total sum of the funding is increasing and the partner organizations feel that they are being cut off from that increase. The total amount that the FDC can distribute is not determined by FDC. So, since as I said most of the people are reasonbale and rational, I would like to call the Foundation to take this point really really seriously. It remains one of the biggest problem between the Foundation and the partner organizations. Greetings. Ting ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
