Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Jane Darnell
Pine,
I totally agree with "I would like to see more peer leadership
from affiliates and less reliance on WMF for both grantmaking and
trademarks." I would hope that this type of thing is starting to show up in
the larger chapter/thorg/user group plans. I like the idea of custom
metrics, especially in light of this statement. An org the size of WMF is
not likely to be leading in this respect. The smaller groups are where you
would expect leadership in this aspect too. I also agree that custom
metrics should not be instead of the WMF metrics requirements - the one is
more for global reporting, and the other is more for local reporting.

Jane

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:12 AM Pine W  wrote:

> I'm going to respond to both Chris and Gerard in one email.
>
> Gerard:
>
> * I agree that it's possible to over-bureaucratize projects, including
> small projects. This is one of the reasons that I think that performance
> analysis should mostly be done with staff or contractor time rather than
> volunteer time. I don't want small projects to get exempted from
> accountability, but I also don't want small projects to be weighed down
> with unreasonable administrative overhead.
>
> * I agree that WMF Community Resources has room for improvement. I may have
> accidentally implied that I think that WMF always does things well and
> always makes good decisions. I too have had experiences of WMF Community
> Resources staff taking far too long to respond to inquiries. However, WMF
> has the money for grants for Wikimedia activities, and there are few
> alternatives to WMF for financial support of Wikimedia affiliate and
> individual projects. If WMF Community Resources' level of responsiveness is
> going to improve then WMF will need to choose to make changes.
>
> Chris:
>
> * I make a distinction between the formation of a user group, and that user
> group running programs. If a user group runs a single small program, and
> correspondingly has little money, then there should be little to report. A
> user group which runs multiple programs and is handling many thousands of
> dollars' worth of funds will have more extensive reporting requirements. I
> think that staff or contractors should complete most of the reporting and
> analysis so that volunteers are not burdened with that work. I would like
> volunteers to be able to focus on mission, on the creation and execution of
> programs, on developing supportive relationships, and on the strategic
> decision-making for their user group, rather than spending significant time
> and effort on administrative activities like writing reports.
>
> * I don't see a way to get out of having multiple reporting systems, such
> as for national tax authorities and for grantmakers such as WMF. Many
> charities deal with this. I think that most of the reporting work can be
> done with staff or contractor time rather than volunteer time.
>
> * Regarding "There is no consensus around what metrics actually matter.
> Global Metrics were only ever presented as a first draft of an answer, and
> for many projects they are simply poor metrics. The movement's focus for
> the last 3-4 years has been on movement entities developing their own
> metrics that are relevant to their own activities. Standardising on naive
> metrics would be a step backwards.", I partly agree and partly disagree. I
> think that we should have ways to compare performance of programs
> affiliates, so that everyone can learn which affiliates and programs tend
> to be especially good or problematic. Over time, as affiliates learn from
> each other, ideally this should lead to more efficient uses of resources,
> and to more effective programs and affiliates. Having common metrics goes a
> long way toward determining which practices are most effective and which
> should be changed or discontinued. I agree that custom metrics may in
> various cases be good to have in addition to Global Metrics. Maybe a way to
> think about this is that Global Metrics are necessary but not always
> sufficient.
>
> * I have very mixed feelings about WMF and Affcom issuing edicts to
> affiliates. I want affiliates and WMF to make good use of money and
> volunteers' time. For better and for worse WMF owns the trademarks and is
> the most significant source of funds for Wikimedia affiliates. Also, Affcom
> currently sets the reporting requirements for affiliates' annual reports.
> So WMF and Affcom have significant ability to use their authorities for
> good purposes. In the longer term, I would like to see more peer leadership
> from affiliates and less reliance on WMF for both grantmaking and
> trademarks. Perhaps in the course of the strategy work there will be some
> good developments. But I don't think that the ongoing development of
> long-term strategy is a reason to wait to require standardized financial
> and performance information in affiliates' annual reports, or to wait to
> provide staff or contractor time to produce and analyze financial 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Bence Damokos
Dear Pine,

Just as a thought experiment try to think through how your proposal would
work for an all-volunteer organisation:
A small group of volunteers starts some programme, and at the same time
they hire a contractor (issue an ad, check CVs, hold interviews, draw up a
contract, monitor and pay invoices, pay any applicable taxes and social
security contributions) whose job it is to keep track of the hours and
money the volunteers spend on the programme and on the administration of it
(including the resources spent on hiring, managing and overseeing the
contractor), plus the global metrics. (The situation is not much better if
the contractor is hired at the end of the project and his job is to
interview everyone, and for the volunteers they need to keep records in
order to be able to reply to the questions.)

In the end, you have to retain proportionality of invested resources vs.
level of reporting burden.

Best regards,
Bence

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, 01:12 Pine W  I'm going to respond to both Chris and Gerard in one email.
>
> Gerard:
>
> * I agree that it's possible to over-bureaucratize projects, including
> small projects. This is one of the reasons that I think that performance
> analysis should mostly be done with staff or contractor time rather than
> volunteer time. I don't want small projects to get exempted from
> accountability, but I also don't want small projects to be weighed down
> with unreasonable administrative overhead.
>
> * I agree that WMF Community Resources has room for improvement. I may have
> accidentally implied that I think that WMF always does things well and
> always makes good decisions. I too have had experiences of WMF Community
> Resources staff taking far too long to respond to inquiries. However, WMF
> has the money for grants for Wikimedia activities, and there are few
> alternatives to WMF for financial support of Wikimedia affiliate and
> individual projects. If WMF Community Resources' level of responsiveness is
> going to improve then WMF will need to choose to make changes.
>
> Chris:
>
> * I make a distinction between the formation of a user group, and that user
> group running programs. If a user group runs a single small program, and
> correspondingly has little money, then there should be little to report. A
> user group which runs multiple programs and is handling many thousands of
> dollars' worth of funds will have more extensive reporting requirements. I
> think that staff or contractors should complete most of the reporting and
> analysis so that volunteers are not burdened with that work. I would like
> volunteers to be able to focus on mission, on the creation and execution of
> programs, on developing supportive relationships, and on the strategic
> decision-making for their user group, rather than spending significant time
> and effort on administrative activities like writing reports.
>
> * I don't see a way to get out of having multiple reporting systems, such
> as for national tax authorities and for grantmakers such as WMF. Many
> charities deal with this. I think that most of the reporting work can be
> done with staff or contractor time rather than volunteer time.
>
> * Regarding "There is no consensus around what metrics actually matter.
> Global Metrics were only ever presented as a first draft of an answer, and
> for many projects they are simply poor metrics. The movement's focus for
> the last 3-4 years has been on movement entities developing their own
> metrics that are relevant to their own activities. Standardising on naive
> metrics would be a step backwards.", I partly agree and partly disagree. I
> think that we should have ways to compare performance of programs
> affiliates, so that everyone can learn which affiliates and programs tend
> to be especially good or problematic. Over time, as affiliates learn from
> each other, ideally this should lead to more efficient uses of resources,
> and to more effective programs and affiliates. Having common metrics goes a
> long way toward determining which practices are most effective and which
> should be changed or discontinued. I agree that custom metrics may in
> various cases be good to have in addition to Global Metrics. Maybe a way to
> think about this is that Global Metrics are necessary but not always
> sufficient.
>
> * I have very mixed feelings about WMF and Affcom issuing edicts to
> affiliates. I want affiliates and WMF to make good use of money and
> volunteers' time. For better and for worse WMF owns the trademarks and is
> the most significant source of funds for Wikimedia affiliates. Also, Affcom
> currently sets the reporting requirements for affiliates' annual reports.
> So WMF and Affcom have significant ability to use their authorities for
> good purposes. In the longer term, I would like to see more peer leadership
> from affiliates and less reliance on WMF for both grantmaking and
> trademarks. Perhaps in the course of the strategy work there will be some
> good 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Pine W
I'm going to respond to both Chris and Gerard in one email.

Gerard:

* I agree that it's possible to over-bureaucratize projects, including
small projects. This is one of the reasons that I think that performance
analysis should mostly be done with staff or contractor time rather than
volunteer time. I don't want small projects to get exempted from
accountability, but I also don't want small projects to be weighed down
with unreasonable administrative overhead.

* I agree that WMF Community Resources has room for improvement. I may have
accidentally implied that I think that WMF always does things well and
always makes good decisions. I too have had experiences of WMF Community
Resources staff taking far too long to respond to inquiries. However, WMF
has the money for grants for Wikimedia activities, and there are few
alternatives to WMF for financial support of Wikimedia affiliate and
individual projects. If WMF Community Resources' level of responsiveness is
going to improve then WMF will need to choose to make changes.

Chris:

* I make a distinction between the formation of a user group, and that user
group running programs. If a user group runs a single small program, and
correspondingly has little money, then there should be little to report. A
user group which runs multiple programs and is handling many thousands of
dollars' worth of funds will have more extensive reporting requirements. I
think that staff or contractors should complete most of the reporting and
analysis so that volunteers are not burdened with that work. I would like
volunteers to be able to focus on mission, on the creation and execution of
programs, on developing supportive relationships, and on the strategic
decision-making for their user group, rather than spending significant time
and effort on administrative activities like writing reports.

* I don't see a way to get out of having multiple reporting systems, such
as for national tax authorities and for grantmakers such as WMF. Many
charities deal with this. I think that most of the reporting work can be
done with staff or contractor time rather than volunteer time.

* Regarding "There is no consensus around what metrics actually matter.
Global Metrics were only ever presented as a first draft of an answer, and
for many projects they are simply poor metrics. The movement's focus for
the last 3-4 years has been on movement entities developing their own
metrics that are relevant to their own activities. Standardising on naive
metrics would be a step backwards.", I partly agree and partly disagree. I
think that we should have ways to compare performance of programs
affiliates, so that everyone can learn which affiliates and programs tend
to be especially good or problematic. Over time, as affiliates learn from
each other, ideally this should lead to more efficient uses of resources,
and to more effective programs and affiliates. Having common metrics goes a
long way toward determining which practices are most effective and which
should be changed or discontinued. I agree that custom metrics may in
various cases be good to have in addition to Global Metrics. Maybe a way to
think about this is that Global Metrics are necessary but not always
sufficient.

* I have very mixed feelings about WMF and Affcom issuing edicts to
affiliates. I want affiliates and WMF to make good use of money and
volunteers' time. For better and for worse WMF owns the trademarks and is
the most significant source of funds for Wikimedia affiliates. Also, Affcom
currently sets the reporting requirements for affiliates' annual reports.
So WMF and Affcom have significant ability to use their authorities for
good purposes. In the longer term, I would like to see more peer leadership
from affiliates and less reliance on WMF for both grantmaking and
trademarks. Perhaps in the course of the strategy work there will be some
good developments. But I don't think that the ongoing development of
long-term strategy is a reason to wait to require standardized financial
and performance information in affiliates' annual reports, or to wait to
provide staff or contractor time to produce and analyze financial and
performance information. Ideally, affiliates and WMF will both benefit from
these enhanced requirements by using the information to make decisions
about what types of programs to run, so that volunteers make good use of
their time and so that everyone makes good use of funds. In my unpaid
capacity, one of the most demoralizing and frustrating experiences that I
have is my time being wasted, which has happened on too many occasions. I
am hoping that the actions that I am proposing here will lead to improved
effectiveness of volunteers' time, and more effective use of WMF and
affiliate financial resources.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

[Wikimedia-l] Language showcase #1: 6th December 2018 (Thursday) at 13:00 UTC

2018-11-29 Thread Amir E. Aharoni
Hello,

This is an announcement about the first installment of the Language
Showcase—a series of presentations about various aspects of language
diversity and its connection to Wikimedia Projects.

This first installment will deal with the challenges of the languages of
sub-Saharan Africa and the Wikimedia projects in them.

This session is going to be broadcast over YouTube, and a recording will be
kept for later viewing.

Please read below for the event details, including local time, youtube
links and do let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

Amir

== Details ==

# Event: Language Showcase #1

# When: December 6, 2018 (Thursday) at 13:00 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20181206T1300)

# Where:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoRrKnG2z2Y

# Agenda:

The challenges of the languages of sub-Saharan Africa and the Wikimedia
projects in them

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] We want to hear about what you did this year!

2018-11-29 Thread Gregory Varnum
We have a couple slots still open for the upcoming Wikimedia monthly
activities meeting next Thursday (6 December 2018) at 18:00 UTC.

Unlike most months, the end-of-year meeting utilizes a lightning talk
format, so you do not need to have as detailed a presentation ready as
usual. :)

This is a great chance to get a 1-3 minute update about something you or
your group accomplished this last year which you are particularly proud of
- and / or feel the movement could learn from.

If you are interested, please sign up on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up

-greg

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:36 PM Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> What happened this year in the Wikimedia movement? We want to hear about
> it at the 6 December activities meeting!
>
> Submissions for lightning talks at next month's Wikimedia monthly
> activities meeting (formerly known as the Metrics meeting) are still being
> accepted on Meta-Wiki:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_monthly_activities_meetings/Sign_up
>
> Thank you to folks that have already reached out with your submissions -
> we have room for more!
>
> End of year lightning talks are 1-3 minutes presentations on a topic or
> project you or your group worked on within the Wikimedia movement this past
> year. The talks will be given during the Wikimedia monthly activities
> meeting on 6 December 2018 at 18:00 UTC.
>
> For more information about the meetings, please visit the info page
> Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=1446937
>
> Thank you!
> -greg
>
> --
> Gregory Varnum
> Communications Strategist
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> gvar...@wikimedia.org
> Pronouns: He/His/Him
>


-- 
Gregory Varnum
Communications Strategist
Wikimedia Foundation 
gvar...@wikimedia.org
Pronouns: He/His/Him
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Pine,

Standardising reporting across affiliates is an attractive-sounding
idea in theory but turns out to be very difficult in practice.

A few issues that spring to mind:
- User Groups are meant to be a low-barrier-to-entry, lightweight form
of affiliation. Basically you need 10 people and a good idea. Creating
in-depth expectations around reporting by User Groups would defeat the
object of having them. [Of course there are plenty of User Groups
these days that are incorporated entities with five or maybe
six-figure budgets, full-time staff, and so on... but that's because
the WMF Board decided that User Groups were the only option available
for new affiliates.]
- Where an affiliate has significant programmes and is incorporated,
there are a whole bunch of expectations on them that depend on how
they register. The way a UK-registered charity has to prepare its
annual accounts is different to how a nonprofit anywhere in the world
has to. Dual-reporting everything according to local laws and the
WMF's expectations already creates issues and extra work, gold-playing
the WMF's expectations would significantly increase this.
- There is no consensus around what metrics actually matter. Global
Metrics were only ever presented as a first draft of an answer, and
for many projects they are simply poor metrics. The movement's focus
for the last 3-4 years has been on movement entities developing their
own metrics that are relevant to their own activities. Standardising
on naive metrics would be a step backwards.
- Also, we are still very much in the middle of the movement strategy
process. What you've suggested is very much a "This is what WMF should
require affiliates to do" approach, hopefully on the other side of the
strategy process we will not be in a situation where we solve problems
in the movement by the WMF telling people what to do. (I mean, in
practice the WMF doesn't do much issuing diktats any more, but
hopefully we will end up with some more formal creative solutions...)

Chris


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:11 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email is mainly addressed to Affcom and WMF but I would like to hear
> others' comments also.
>
> Some background information regarding the context for this email: the
> recently published annual reports from user groups reminded me of some
> issues that I first considered a few years ago. I believe that user group
> annual reports are currently not standardized, and I think that the public
> and WMF might like to have standardized quantitative and comparable ways to
> understand affiliates' work, including use of volunteer hours and
> per-program benefits, while minimizing the burden on volunteers for
> administrative tasks.
>
> I would like to suggest that Affcom and WMF require that all affiliates'
> annual reports include:
>
> 1. A list of programs which the affiliate supported in the past year. For
> each program the affiliate should state the financial costs to the
> affiliate including overhead costs and overhead person-hours attributable
> to the program, how much time the organizers and participants spent on the
> program, the Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results of each program, and
> results for any custom-defined measures of success. Auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> 2. A financial summary for the year that states all sources of income and
> amounts from each source, how funds were spent, funds payable, funds
> receivable, debts, reserves, assets, etc.
>
> 3. Total annual organizer and participant person-hours and a summary of how
> those hours were used, for both programmatic and non-programmatic
> activities.
>
> 4. Total annual Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results for the year, and total
> annual results for any custom-defined metrics. Again, auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> This information is important enough that I would support reasonable staff
> or contractor expenses to produce reports with these details. I am mindful
> of how precious volunteer time is, and I do not want to burden already
> generous volunteers with administrative work that could be done by
> contractors or staff. Some cooperation and support for reporting from
> volunteer organizers may be necessary, such as when gathering information
> from participants at individual events. Some affiliates may have such
> generous volunteers that they can do all of the reporting with volunteer
> time. But for many affiliates I would support reasonable expenses for
> producing standardized quantitative information in annual reports while
> minimizing the administrative burden on volunteers.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
>
> Pine
> ( 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Wonderful that you want to burden people with new standards. I have had
dealings with funding of the WMF. I delivered on time and for what I
delivered to work, the WMF had to do its stuff on time. They did not, my
project petered out and THEN they required me to jump through hoops
demonstrating that my project was "appropriate".. It was no longer and from
the WMF there was no self reflection.

When for whatever good reason you want OTHERS to deliver according to your
standards / WMF standards, be advised that such a requirement need to be
bidirectional. What I have noticed is that funding and organisational stuff
has become increasingly bureaucratic and for simple small projects it
stopped functioning.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 04:11, Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This email is mainly addressed to Affcom and WMF but I would like to hear
> others' comments also.
>
> Some background information regarding the context for this email: the
> recently published annual reports from user groups reminded me of some
> issues that I first considered a few years ago. I believe that user group
> annual reports are currently not standardized, and I think that the public
> and WMF might like to have standardized quantitative and comparable ways to
> understand affiliates' work, including use of volunteer hours and
> per-program benefits, while minimizing the burden on volunteers for
> administrative tasks.
>
> I would like to suggest that Affcom and WMF require that all affiliates'
> annual reports include:
>
> 1. A list of programs which the affiliate supported in the past year. For
> each program the affiliate should state the financial costs to the
> affiliate including overhead costs and overhead person-hours attributable
> to the program, how much time the organizers and participants spent on the
> program, the Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results of each program, and
> results for any custom-defined measures of success. Auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> 2. A financial summary for the year that states all sources of income and
> amounts from each source, how funds were spent, funds payable, funds
> receivable, debts, reserves, assets, etc.
>
> 3. Total annual organizer and participant person-hours and a summary of how
> those hours were used, for both programmatic and non-programmatic
> activities.
>
> 4. Total annual Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results for the year, and total
> annual results for any custom-defined metrics. Again, auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> This information is important enough that I would support reasonable staff
> or contractor expenses to produce reports with these details. I am mindful
> of how precious volunteer time is, and I do not want to burden already
> generous volunteers with administrative work that could be done by
> contractors or staff. Some cooperation and support for reporting from
> volunteer organizers may be necessary, such as when gathering information
> from participants at individual events. Some affiliates may have such
> generous volunteers that they can do all of the reporting with volunteer
> time. But for many affiliates I would support reasonable expenses for
> producing standardized quantitative information in annual reports while
> minimizing the administrative burden on volunteers.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,