Dear Deryck,
many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not
assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will
not die out completely.
One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your
personal capacity, but representing the chapter
Hi, Deryck.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I look forward to working with WMHK on a
suitable plan for development (even right now, though I'm guessing WMHK has
its hands full till after Wikimania).
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Deryck Chan wrote:
> Hello everyone again.
>
Hello everyone again.
Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or
privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and
subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith persona
Florence Devouard wrote:
>I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in
>France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things
>together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.).
>Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
> but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his
> effort and involvement.
>
> And boy... is that sad :(
>
> Flo
>
Agreed, and I'll say i
Le 4/30/13 11:22 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede a écrit :
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
Wh
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit :
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
use a new thread!
Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for
his effort a
Is there any (un)official policy/strong advice/anything against direct
hiring from WMF/FDC/whatever grants?
Balazs
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak
> hi Jeromy-Yu,
>
> thank you for sharing this personal note.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <
> jerry.tschan...@gmail
hi Jeromy-Yu,
thank you for sharing this personal note.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <
jerry.tschan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck
> we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us s
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time
or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and
paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some
basis for a future growth.
WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point
As I heard in Milan
Long time staffing, must go trough FDC
And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management
(I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter
board
But what do you expect if they have day time o
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
use a new thread!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor,
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
outcome. For no-one.
And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a c
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
> Hey Florence
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
> > Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
> >> some way equitably distribute those fu
2013/4/30 Charles Andres :
> In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could
> use in parallel if FDC assessment.
>
> But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it
> seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
>
>
> Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that
> same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the
> importance of the difference between the two…
>
> People don't instantly agree on everythin
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could
use in parallel if FDC assessment.
But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it
seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply
to the FDC as a preliminary
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>
>>
>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
>
> What happens to the idea according to w
Hey Deryck,
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
>>
>> But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a
>> discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?
>
> I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any
>> orga
hi Erlend,
I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns,
in my view, and I would like to address them.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed
> funding process, and the resour
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
> Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
I think this exact point is often overlooked.
I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thin
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are
you all posted there?
;-)
Erlend, WMNO
2013/4/30 phoebe ayers
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt >wrote:
>
> > Dear Nathan,
> > I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
> Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
> Asians aswell from there.
India, anyone?
_
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
> I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
> funds" away to weak chapters.
> The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
> made reaching out to the world's largest
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
> suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
> chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
> referred to WMKH specifically, my comments
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
funds" away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the
hands of the reporting and planni
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional f
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to ra
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to
achieve meaningful results
I hope a few remarks are valid.
As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application
during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH.
The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is
understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations a
This situation is regrettable. My impression is that the FDC ombudsperson
should review the handling of WMHK's grant application, including the earlier
investigations and communications regarding the determination of whether or not
WMHK should have been disqualified from this FDC round. The ombu
On 29 April 2013 21:10, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
> Hey
>
> So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I
> would like to ask you something.
>
> >
> > Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
> > hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw lit
On 29 April 2013 17:53, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
>> *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
>> evaluate it differently.
>
>
> And this is *precise
Hi Markus,
I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant
once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out
of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better…
And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review
Hey
So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I
would like to ask you something.
>
> Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
> hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the
> remaining funds from the 2010-11 gra
what happened with regards to the unused
> funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan wrote:
>
> > -- Forwar
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
> list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why
> it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there,
> and else where - so it
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
Jan-Bart
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the mov
>
> P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
>
Agreed, I am not on Internal either…
Jan-Bart
> [1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable,
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
> Dear trusty Wikimedians,
>
> The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we recei
Deryck,
it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you
as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and
contributions are very valuable to the movement.
It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and
FDC funding when it co
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak :
> My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
> there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
> what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
>
Actually the information how GAC works is I
well, the fundamental question regarding the "centralisation of funds" is
whether we agree that some chapters have higher impact ability (in terms of
effectiveness, results, etc.) and should be prioritized in terms of funding
access, or whether any decisions about funds distribution based on projec
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
> *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
> evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
funds
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.
Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an
"algorithm" but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.
These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the
project.
This has genera
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin wrote:
> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
> it discovered they were not?
When the FDC recommendations were published. (see my reply to THO
Dear Deryck,
I am also sorry to read this. Thank you for sharing your reflections,
they are always welcome.
The FDC is an experiment in peer review, one that I think holds
promise. It was designed in part to avoid 'mainstream charity
bureaucracy'. But this is its first year, and there will be
hi,
I whole-heartily agree with many of Christophe's comments. Whenever
possible, GAC should take precedent before the FDC in my opinion. The FDC
should typically involve those entities, which have grown significantly
(often also through part-time staff hired for specific projects well
before).
I
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
(which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC
application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
was futil
David Gerard, 29/04/2013 11:16:
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
>> Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
>> strong enough, keeping them at th
Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten
a écrit:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
requ
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
> Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
> strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear this was a design
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
[...]
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...]
Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry that
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
>> To: dger...@gmail.com
>> CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announ
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each
member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This
ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during
the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment.
And cul
Hi Christophe,
> From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
> To: dger...@gmail.com
> CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to
> everyone
> As I said in my previous e
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the
topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff
and FDC members in their comments do.
Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to
evaluate the projects
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Ind
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
Or
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
> funding discussions:
>
> WMHK FDC proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
>
> Responses:
> https:
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner wrote:
> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund
> the first employee.
> The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time
> and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as m
er: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36
To:
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement,
and a parting remark to everyone
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go,
but
Erik Moeller wrote:
>As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
>funding discussions:
>
>[...]
Thanks for the links.
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making
information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are
made. Is
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole Wikimania
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic
that future generations figure this out
On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan wrote:
> Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
> subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was alwa
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always
going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time
to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make
volunteers more comfortable
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
Responses:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you
are to our movement and you have my sincere respect.
I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise,
and take a moment for doubt and serious review.
Fae (mobile)
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a
71 matches
Mail list logo
