Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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 (it would be logical if
only the organizations, which are dissatisfied with the results related to
them, could complain). The deadline is also quite short, 7 days from the
day the recommendations were published.

best,

dariusz


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Deryck Chan  wrote:

> 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 personal
> attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
> recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
> people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
> filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
> determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
> comment any more on this matter.
>
> Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
> of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
> measures for local volunteers.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 28 April 2013 23:52, 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 received
> an
> > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> > of our FDC proposal.
> >
> > 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. I will carry out
> > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
> and
> > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
> staff
> > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
> Wikimedia
> > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> > Wikimedia.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
> staff
> > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
> >
> > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
> vocal
> > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
> request
> > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
> with
> > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
> to
> > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> > was rejected.
> >
> > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
> >
> > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> > and the frustration?
> >
> > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
> more
> > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> > charity governance. Imposing a professional standa

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Asaf Bartov]

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.
>
> 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 personal
> attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
> recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
> people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
> filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
> determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
> comment any more on this matter.
>
> Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
> of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
> measures for local volunteers.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 28 April 2013 23:52, 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 received
> an
> > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> > of our FDC proposal.
> >
> > 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. I will carry out
> > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
> and
> > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
> staff
> > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
> Wikimedia
> > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> > Wikimedia.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
> staff
> > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
> >
> > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
> vocal
> > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
> request
> > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
> with
> > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
> to
> > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> > was rejected.
> >
> > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
> >
> > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> > and the frustration?
> >
> > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
> more
> > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement
> entity
> > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
> > toddlers by their full marathon times.
> >
> > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary
> > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
> > chicken-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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 personal
attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
comment any more on this matter.

Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
measures for local volunteers.

Deryck

On 28 April 2013 23:52, 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 received an
> overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> of our FDC proposal.
>
> 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. I will carry out
> my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
>
> My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and
> of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff
> to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia
> chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> Wikimedia.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff
> manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
>
> WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal
> about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request
> for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with
> the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to
> professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> was rejected.
>
> And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
>
> My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> and the frustration?
>
> Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more
> traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity
> as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
> toddlers by their full marathon times.
>
> Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary
> idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
> chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
> and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
> studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
> WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
> where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[MZMcBride]

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 hired
>secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the
>association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer
>entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members).

Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States
as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy
number of Wikimedia chapters.

>In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership
>fees.

The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this
need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little
seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are
met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Philippe Beaudette]

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 it:  to Yaroslav and everyone else who slaves away to
make Wikimania work... thank you.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

pb

___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

phili...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Florence Devouard]

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.


What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia 
mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?


Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and 
as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC 
because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the 
movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, 
and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I 
am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a 
important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.


No worry there. I know the board is largely (or unanimously ?) 
supporting the concept of FDC. My question was definitly to Nathan...






Supporting

chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
way the WMF itself was created and has grown.


I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts 
started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some 
months ago to deflate WMF role.
But we may agree to disagree on this.


I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help 
certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. 
This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all 
affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It 
is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and 
lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.



Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of 
most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative 
fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements 
and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more 
ideal view of the past :)


True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now 
if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal 
of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED)  the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible 
to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.


True. But I would argue that's in good part because we had so little 
that things were operated in a "bad" way. And it is not because WMF was 
so tight on money for its first 3-4 years of operations that we should 
somehow make it so that all organizations should also go through such 
pains.




It would be a poor use

of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
criticism and Sue's impending departure.


I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were 
sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the 
entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF 
ones).


Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to 
never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in 
these matters as a matter of governance)



In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know 
is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to 
stay healthy.


True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of 
"make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.


Yup :)
Which is why I stepped down at last year elections on WM FR board. I am 
really glad I did it. I knew this year was going to be really tough. And 
it is not deceiving me annus horribilis :(






We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl 
volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.


I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we 
know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem 
is not limited to chapters) and it tak

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Florence Devouard]

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 and involvement.


And boy... is that sad :(

Flo




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, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:


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 chapter organizing
Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
mis-management and waste of donor resources".

Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
do not. I do.

And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.

Florence




My personal experience after being an active program committee member on
the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I
believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed
to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated
by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else,
a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in
2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking
whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone
duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not
needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that.
I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I
can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania
organization.

Cheers
Yaroslav


__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Balázs Viczián]

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.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 should
> > never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> > without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone
> had
> > to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
> >
>
> I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should
> never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related
> only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well
> as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the
> estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities,
> etc.).
>
> I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation
>
>
> > But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> > irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development,
> the
> > worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
> >
>
> I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been
> our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the
> volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is
> something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I
> also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on
> its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded
> separately).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz ("pundit")
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[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.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 should
> never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
> to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
>

I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should
never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related
only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well
as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the
estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities,
etc.).

I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation


> But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
> worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
>

I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been
our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the
volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is
something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I
also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on
its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded
separately).

best,

dariusz ("pundit")
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Osmar Valdebenito]

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 years (correct
me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters,
probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and
that can be helpful to imagine what you can do.

*Osmar Valdebenito G.*
Director Ejecutivo
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina


2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan 

> 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 or/& studies?)
>
> And going trough these year of struggle for survival
> We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff
> to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more
> "meaningful".
>
> 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 should
> never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
> to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
>
> But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
> worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
>
> Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by
> young people like us
> WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have
> such strong feeling
> It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be
> helpful all the time.
>
> we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the
> stuff in working hours
> and of course improve the area they accuse us
> That's it
>
> (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund
>
> we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told
> them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly
> AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME
>
>
> Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting
> I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around
> Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will
>
> And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which
> again a hell lot volunteer time)
> Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through
> all these frankly
>
> On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or
> ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things
> go so inhumane.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <
> jerry.tschan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 Local Team
> I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
> volunteer power
> after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
> and knew most of the stories.
>
> --
> Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
> http://plasticnews.wf/
> http://about.me/jeromyu
> UID: Jeromyu
> (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)
>
> Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
> Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον  ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan]

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 or/& studies?)

And going trough these year of struggle for survival
We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff
to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more
"meaningful".

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 should
never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.

But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.

Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by
young people like us
WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have
such strong feeling
It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be
helpful all the time.

we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the
stuff in working hours
and of course improve the area they accuse us
That's it

(also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund

we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told
them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly
AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME


Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting
I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around
Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will

And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which
again a hell lot volunteer time)
Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through
all these frankly

On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or
ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things
go so inhumane.

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <
jerry.tschan...@gmail.com> wrote:

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 Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

-- 
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Richard Symonds]

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, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:

> 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 chapter organizing
>> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
>> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
>> mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>>
>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
>> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
>> do not. I do.
>>
>> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
>> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
>> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>>
> My personal experience after being an active program committee member on
> the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I
> believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed
> to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated
> by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else,
> a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in
> 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking
> whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone
> duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not
> needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that.
> I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I
> can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania
> organization.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

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 chapter organizing
Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
mis-management and waste of donor resources".

Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
do not. I do.

And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.

Florence




My personal experience after being an active program committee member 
on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there 
(and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we 
managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only 
appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words 
from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of 
corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 
ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this 
job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator 
flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me 
or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there 
are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost 
all interest in Wikimania organization.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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 funds around the world.
> >
> > What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
> Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
>
> Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me
> and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the
> FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed
> amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those
> of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are
> divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the
> community review process as a important addition) ensures much more
> transparent processes.
>
> >
> > Supporting
> >> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
> >> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
> >> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
> >> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
> >> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
> >> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
> >> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
> >
> > I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement
> efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision
> made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
> > But we may agree to disagree on this.
>
> I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to
> help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better
> alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters
> and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan
> this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for
> all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for
> others.
>
> >
> > Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current
> stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a
> rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison
> to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may
> have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
>
> True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they
> should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are
> both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of
> luck in finding the right ED)  the scale of the organisation now makes it
> impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely
> necessary.
> >
> > It would be a poor use
> >> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
> >> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
> >> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
> >> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
> >> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
> >> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
> >
> > I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions
> (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement,
> not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not
> become WMF ones).
>
> Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope
> to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final
> say in these matters as a matter of governance)
>
> >
> > In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What
> I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated
> volunteers to stay healthy.
>
> True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into
> positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
>
> >
> > We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk
> about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
>
> I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in
> Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise
> affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes
> different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and
> keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big
> bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn
> out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those
> problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk
> of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Patricio Lorente]

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 
> apply to the FDC as a preliminary step.
>
> I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply 
> to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the 
> appropriate grant process  :-)

Hi Charles! That would be really helpful.

I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals
includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both
the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in
advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve
the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of
grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be
addressed with this change in the process. See
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.html
for more details.

Patricio

--
Patricio Lorente
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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 everything. There is always something the
WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm
referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then
eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the
settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We
all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an
agreement between WMF and WMHK.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[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 apply 
to the FDC as a preliminary step.

I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to 
the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the 
appropriate grant process  :-)

Charles

Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, 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.
>> 
>> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the 
>> Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
> 
> Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me 
> and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC 
> because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst 
> the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the 
> movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we 
> agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community 
> review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent 
> processes.
> 
>> 
>> Supporting
>>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
>>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
>>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
>>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
>>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
>>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
>>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
>> 
>> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts 
>> started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some 
>> months ago to deflate WMF role.
>> But we may agree to disagree on this.
> 
> I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to 
> help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better 
> alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and 
> all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this 
> year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all 
> involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for 
> others.
> 
>> 
>> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage 
>> of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather 
>> creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the 
>> requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a 
>> slightly more ideal view of the past :)
> 
> True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should 
> be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both 
> happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck 
> in finding the right ED)  the scale of the organisation now makes it 
> impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely 
> necessary.
>> 
>> It would be a poor use
>>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
>>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
>>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
>>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
>>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
>>> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
>> 
>> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we 
>> were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to 
>> the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become 
>> WMF ones).
> 
> Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to 
> never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say 
> in these matters as a matter of governance)
> 
>> 
>> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I 
>> know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated 
>> volunteers to stay healthy.
> 
> True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into 
> positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
> 
>> 
>> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk 
>> about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
> 
> I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in 
> Milan. As we know there are different kind of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

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 which the funds belong to the Wikimedia 
> mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?

Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and 
as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC 
because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the 
movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, 
and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I 
am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a 
important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.

> 
> Supporting
>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
> 
> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts 
> started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some 
> months ago to deflate WMF role.
> But we may agree to disagree on this.

I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help 
certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. 
This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all 
affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It 
is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and 
lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.

> 
> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage 
> of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather 
> creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the 
> requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a 
> slightly more ideal view of the past :)

True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be 
"bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy 
that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in 
finding the right ED)  the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to 
tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
> 
> It would be a poor use
>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
>> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
> 
> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we 
> were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to 
> the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become 
> WMF ones).

Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to 
never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in 
these matters as a matter of governance)

> 
> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I 
> know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated 
> volunteers to stay healthy.

True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions 
of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.

> 
> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about 
> irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.

I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in 
Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise 
affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes 
different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and 
keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic 
body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of 
lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are 
within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all 
those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging 
experiences is a really good way of recharging)...

> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain 
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

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
>> organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If
>> you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an
>> advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that
>> supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is
>> governance…
>> 
> 
> From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times
> that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered
> in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the
> reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for
> us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."
> 

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…

(and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC 
pointed out). 

>> 
>> Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the
>> annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website
>> after the meeting of the 16th of March…  I wanted to go through it, but
>> could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under
>> documentation?) Can you point me to it?
>> 
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf
> (or scroll halfway down the proposal page)
> 

Thanks!

Jan-Bart
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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 resources available in a chapter with 0 employees,
> is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed:
> Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the
> first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers,
> another is the under-utilization of critical resources.
>

 In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have
different resources and abilities than the large ones.

In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3
categories of applicants:
*

a) the small chapters in incubation phase (typically below 100,000 USD),

b) medium sized mature chapters,

c) large organizations (above 1.000,000 USD).


We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards
of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more
lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their
limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on
organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural
growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and
that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should
have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some
impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not
all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative
growth may be perceived as valuable on its own.

*


> The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased,
> until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very
> low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the
> USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global
> organisation, this imbalance is not optimal.  The FCA initiative is a
> reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources
> pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its
> address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than
> in the rest of the world combined?
>

Among  seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is
American.

best,

Dariusz ("pundit")
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Andrea Zanni]

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 thing.

I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the
content of Wikipedia,
and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the
sitenotice for fundraising.
As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside
Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or
maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users.
The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM
entity was then to ask permission to them.

The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia.
So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice
or neither of us.

Aubrey
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

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
> > 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 planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong.
> That
> > is disastreous.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
> > hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco
> without
> > really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
> > celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
> > Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
> > utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious
> task
> > for the WMF.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Erlend Bjørtvedt
> > WMNO
>
>
> This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note:
> as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that
> the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We
> occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and
> editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the
> group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the
> volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other
> part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have
> happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities
> and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have
> happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like
> anywhere else.
>
> -- phoebe
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.org 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[K. Peachey]

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?

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[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
> 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 planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That
> is disastreous.
>
> 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.
>
> Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
> hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without
> really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
> celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
> Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
> utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task
> for the WMF.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Erlend Bjørtvedt
> WMNO


This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note:
as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that
the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We
occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and
editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the
group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the
volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other
part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have
happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities
and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have
happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like
anywhere else.

-- phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Simon Shek]

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 were not directed at it.
>
> In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds
> belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
> serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
> obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
> articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
> States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
>
> Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
> in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
> without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
> raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
> not to another large organization with its own duties.
>
> To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
> its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
> can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
> is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
> movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
> funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
> the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
> administrative staff, I would choose the former.


Still, you need to have local staff to do local work.
I guess educational program, including school talks and visiting, and
all other outreaching activities do not require time (speaking on
day-time! 9-5); and maybe they could be done via Skype or after
day-off. Wait, kids go home after school.

WMF had asked us to help their wikipedia educational program in a
college last fall. Maybe flying a WMF staff from SF to Hong Kong is a
much better solution. Then our volunteer may didn't have to skip his
class.

Ok. Now we see opportunities but no volunteers and time to execute
them, so we ask for staff support in operation.
Or maybe nothing could happen.

Thank you.

--
Simon Shek
Council secretary
Wikimedia Hong Kong

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

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 planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That
is disastreous.

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.

Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without
really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task
for the WMF.

Kind regards,

Erlend Bjørtvedt
WMNO



2013/4/30 Nathan 

> 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 from a legal perspective that the funds
> belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
> serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
> obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
> articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
> States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
>
> Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
> in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
> without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
> raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
> not to another large organization with its own duties.
>
> To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
> its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
> can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
> is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
> movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
> funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
> the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
> administrative staff, I would choose the former.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
 http://no.wikimedia.org 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Nathan]

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 from a legal perspective that the funds
belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.

Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
not to another large organization with its own duties.

To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
administrative staff, I would choose the former.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Florence Devouard]

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 raise money to
achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny
from the FDC or GAC.  It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC
process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt
feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a
symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly
innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and
judiciously granting funds.

In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC
reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single
budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in
engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals;
China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not
align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to
seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the
importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and
should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that
parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.

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 which the funds belong to the 
Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?


Supporting

chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
way the WMF itself was created and has grown.


I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement 
efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision 
made some months ago to deflate WMF role.

But we may agree to disagree on this.

Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current 
stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a 
rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in 
comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to 
chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)




 It would be a poor use

of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
criticism and Sue's impending departure.


I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions 
(=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the 
mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of 
allocations should not become WMF ones).


In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What 
I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated 
volunteers to stay healthy.


We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk 
about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.


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 chapter organizing 
Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, 
fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, 
mis-management and waste of donor resources".


Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more 
respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we 
do not. I do.


And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter 
would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to 
present apologies for using such a strong statement.


Florence



Nathan

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Nathan]

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 in their area, even without a single penny
from the FDC or GAC.  It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC
process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt
feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a
symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly
innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and
judiciously granting funds.

In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC
reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single
budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in
engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals;
China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not
align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to
seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the
importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and
should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that
parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.

It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
way the WMF itself was created and has grown. It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
criticism and Sue's impending departure.

Nathan

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

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 and
other funds. Legislation and general ethics call for a thorough application
process.

However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed
funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees,
is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed:
Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the
first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers,
another is the under-utilization of critical resources.

The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased,
until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very
low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the
USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global
organisation, this imbalance is not optimal.  The FCA initiative is a
reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources
pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its
address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than
in the rest of the world combined?

One major problem then, is that countries attracting millions of dollars in
donations, have insufficient organisational resources to make full use of
that local enthusiasm. We must not forget how few volunteers really are,
and how valuable their energy is to the projects rather than applied in
planning and book-keeping. What it the WMF tried to post some foundation
resources more evenly between regions and time zones, to assist chapters
and community processes more directly in the region. Serving Eastern Europe
or the Middle East time zones from San Fransisco is next to impossible, for
obvious reasons. Assistance presently restricts itselves to reporting,
planning and spread-sheet scrutiny, as apart from a more directly
supportive approach.

To just illustrate the point, we have existed for five years as a chapter
in Norway, supporting  a high project production, but with a modest
population. Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic states are in more or less the
same situation. During the three years I have served at the chapter board,
I have never heard of any initiative from the WMF staff to neither visit,
meet, inspect, or support directly the projects and activities that are
taking place locally. There are no regular or even sporadic support visits,
campaign or outreach efforts from WMF in the region. Valuable but
complicated campaign initiatives that often require substantial
administrative effort, are totally left to the efforts of volunteers, with
an increasing gap towards the growing resources in the other and of the
organisational chain. "Translate this press brief, and try to get on local
tv". One result will be an even more unevenly distributed outreach and
campaigning power between some professionalised hubs (Germany, India, UK,
Switzerland, Israel), and totally amateur hubs (Hong Kong, Egypt, Japan,
Pakistan, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, etc).

Normally, organisational resources would be dispersed to reach out to the
most promising "markets" (for example, chinese or arabic language
communities) and adjust for local "market failure" in reaching that goal.
Instead, WMF resources are presently dispersed to the chapters and
communities that coincidently did fundraising before a certain date, or
reach through with their FDC submissions. Among them are hardly any
arab-speaking or chinese-speaking chapters, representing the two billion
people of those immensely large cultures.

This is in no way an effort to deny the hard work, entrepreneurship and
creativity of successful chapters. The problem lies not in London and
Berlin, but in Cairo and Lahore. Countries with hundreds of millions
of inhabitants are devoid of even the slightest organizational resource to
mobilize. This is too important to leave to an application process. The WMF
will eventually have to disperse resources more directly to overseas,
regional centras covering important time-zones. The WCA initiative and the
failure of WMHK to establish an outreach hub for its 1,3 billion strong
language-community, should be a powerful wake-up-call to start parting up
some of the resource at least for occasional focused efforts. India was a
good start.

Personally, it took the grants and funding processes to realizehow critical
this is. For many amateur chapters, the reporting regime inherent in such
processes is simply too much. In stead of draining lcal organizational
resources towards San Fransisco (by way of applications), turn the table
and start distributing some headquarter resources directly outwards, to the
chapters.

I am probably mistaken in much of the a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[ENWP Pine]

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 ombudsperson may 
have access to information such as emails and accounting documents that are not 
public. I hope the ombudsperson's review will be reasonably speedy and 
thorough, and the results made public. One possible determination of an 
ombudsperson review is that the FDC's final determinations were right but that 
there are opportunities for improvement in communications with the chapter so 
that there aren't surprises late in the process which result in a high level of 
frustration for chapter volunteers.

Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the value 
of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with regards to 
chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first full time 
employee. There have also been comments made regarding the "heavy" nature of 
the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff please indicate whether 
a review of these concerns is under consideration, if so, how they plan to 
conduct the review? 

Thanks,

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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 little value in settling the
> > remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will
> change
> > everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this
> is
> > a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
> >
>
> 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
> organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If
> you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an
> advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that
> supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is
> governance…
>

From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times
that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered
in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the
reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for
us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."

>
> Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the
> annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website
> after the meeting of the 16th of March…  I wanted to go through it, but
> could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under
> documentation?) Can you point me to it?
>

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf
(or scroll halfway down the proposal page)

>
> And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just
> the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a
> significant amount of time discussing this...
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> >> paid
> >>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHKto
>  still be an eligible entity.
> >>>
> >>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> >>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Thehelpfulone
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Christophe Henner]

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 *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
> funds came in.
>
> (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
> actively chose to ignore it.)
>
>
> - d.
>

Hey David,

I fear, but I might be wrong so correct me on that, that you are
mixing two things that happened roughly at the same time:
* the payment processing
* the FDC creation

Payment processing centralisation that is, imo, on the long run a wrong move.
And the FDC that is, imo, a good move on the long run.

The first question, payment processing, is not up to discussion for
the coming years. [
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 ]

Whether we like it, or not, the decision the board made is clearly a
middle ground that leaves us a few years to test out what seems to be
the most efficient. I'm sure we will have long discussions about that
in 2015 (if my calculus isn't too bad, we should start to talk about
it around then).

If you are actually talking about that, please forget that email (as I
don't think it's useful to get in that discussion now ^^)

So the FDC and the centralisation of fund dissemination. Well, before
FDC, funds were not really disseminated. WMF and chapters provided
other chapters with grant, but for a non fundraising chapter there was
little chance to get large sums of money and there was no way to
ensure the movement was growing with good practices.

I can't really see why that is a bad thing.

Is the WM HK situation good for the movement right now? Perhaps not.
And honestly I don't feel I'm in any position to evaluate that. I
didn't read thoroughly their proposal and I just saw about their grant
issue (whoever fault it is) today.

The FDC process need to be improved, we all agree on that, and WM HK
situation do show that we need that step in-between GAC grants and FDC
allocation.

The FDC is in its infancy, and we're hitting bumps. We're facing new challenges.
And quite frankly when we designed it last year, I was expecting much
much much more issues than we had.

I don't believe we would be pointing fingers and that we'd rather try
to find what went wrong and how to fix it.

And that exactly is what we're doing now I think, and what will be
done over the coming month.

And as the board member of a chapter that had its first proposal
mostly refused and had to go through the process twice in 6 month (and
is right now working on the FDC Q1 report) I can definitely say
there's room for improvement AND that the FDC process is a really
heavy process.

Best,

--
Christophe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

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 amongst 
themselves, I think its great and heard enthusiasm for the idea in Milan

Jan-Bart


On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Markus Glaser  wrote:

> 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 comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and 
> first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, 
> IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help 
> to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding proposal from GAC to FDC 
> and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's 
> still a fallback option.
> 
> Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the 
> experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to 
> three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might 
> have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no 
> expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are 
> willing to help with such an assessment?
> 
> Best,
> Markus
> 
> -- 
> Markus Glaser
> WCA Council Member (WMDE)
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

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 grants because the FDC results will change
> everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is
> a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
> 

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 organisation I 
know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given 
money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a 
possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the 
grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance…

Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual 
report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the 
meeting of the 16th of March…  I wanted to go through it, but could not find it 
on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to 
it?

And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just the 
fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a significant amount 
of time discussing this...

Jan-Bart







>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>> 
>> 
>> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone  wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>>> 
>>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
>> paid
>>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK
>>  to still be an eligible entity.
>>> 
>>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
>>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> Thehelpfulone
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hello Everyone

I was an observer on the first round of the FDC, Patricio was the observer of 
the recent round of FDC requests so he will probably be able to tell you more 
on the specific details. But in general I have been (and still am) extremely 
impressed with the level of scrutiny   AND the flexibility of the FDC members. 
I was witness to several spirited discussions and saw a group of thoughtful 
people doing what they were good at: reviewing proposals for large grants.

But as I understand there were several "issues" with the proposal, please do 
not pick on one issue. We had a community review period which also resulted in 
some serious questions (some without answers).  And the FDC feedback gave 
several reasons. 

I would have seriously disappointed if $200K+ was granted. I do think that we 
need to provide a way to support an organisation after the FDC process… and we 
have in several cases in the past. 

David: I do not agree with you. you are blaming the WMF for the fact that the 
FDC is doing a good job in reviewing funding proposals. The "Centralisation" of 
payment processing has little to do with this. In fact, most chapters that do 
not payment process since the change (and there were not that many to begin 
with) are happy with the new process (and a lot of other chapters go through 
Grants process, which they would have done anyway regardless of the change to 
an FDC which exists alongside). I argue that the FDC is the best thing that has 
happened to our movement and combined with an improved process and chapter peer 
review we are going to get even better. I would love to hear how you would have 
handled this particular FDC request.


Jan-Bart




On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan  wrote:

> We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 
> 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. 
> the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is 
> logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of 
> Wikimania.
> 
> Winifred informed us of the "out of compliance" well after the grant report 
> was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. There was no 
> indication whatsoever that this late notice of "out of compliance" may lead 
> to retrospective disqualification.
> 
> Deryck
> 
> (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, 
> I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
> 
> 
> On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone  wrote:
> Deryck please could you confirm 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:
> 
> > -- Forwarded message ------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" 
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: 
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> >
> > See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> > declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
> > new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> > excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> > On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "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?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
> >> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> >> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> >> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone  wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> >> paid
> >>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-201

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[David Gerard]

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's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)


It's pretty much inactive and closing it has been proposed.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Sarah Stierch]

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 movement, as to 
why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, 
there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)


-Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

> 
> 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, but more
> useful than a life spent doing nothing."
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[phoebe ayers]

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 received an
> overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> of our FDC proposal.
>
> 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. I will carry out
> my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.


Deryck! I'm also sorry to read this message, and sorry that it has been so
frustrating for you and the rest of the HK team.

It sounds like it was tough to communicate what was going on with the other
grant, and there is disagreement and confusion about whether the end of
that grant was appropriately communicated to WMF. Perhaps this is a good
time for the ombudsperson to step in and take a look at what happened.

I'd also say that this is an area of FDC process we need to shore up and
clarify (eligible entities should expect to stay eligible, or know clearly
that they might become ineligible under certain circumstances).

I can't wait to attend Wikimania, and visit Hong Kong for the first time. I
know that planning the conference is incredibly stressful on top of
everything else. Hang in there,

-- Phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Markus Glaser]

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 comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an 
office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the 
funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. 
Maybe it would help to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding 
proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is 
not approved at all, there's still a fallback option.


Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on 
the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from 
zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the 
proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. 
Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of 
people together who are willing to help with such an assessment?


Best,
Markus

--
Markus Glaser
WCA Council Member (WMDE)
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Tomasz Ganicz]

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 IMHO much more clear that
for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made
almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of
applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that
application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters
professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application
to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among
others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications
were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were
withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off
of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were
accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these
chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in
predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact.
Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is
for sure not a solution for professionalisation.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Table

-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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 project
analysis are fundamentally wrong.  If we agree that the role of the FDC is
not only to approve all projects that come in, but also to actively try to
evaluate them and occasionally recommend cutting or denying funds from this
particular source (while recommending going to others), one thing is
guaranteed: the chapters, which do not receive funding, will be
disappointed and often will express it, round after round. This should not
necessarily be mistaken for a flaw in the FDC process per se, although
always some concrete comments and complaints about the process should be
considered fully by the ombudsperson, the board, and the community (after
all, all projects, discussions about them, as well as assessments are
available to read).

The question whether a different FDC composition would evaluate the
projects differently is definitely valid, although when 7 (and soon 9)
members of the community, all with significant chapter and/or grants
experience actually reach a consensus on some issue, I would assume that
this agreement may likely be replicable. Nevertheless, there will always
also be borderline cases where there is no consensus, and yet a decision
has to be made (round 2 went through unanimously though).

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.

Ilario - some general matrix of evaluation is indeed a useful idea. The
current for does attempt to address this a little, but definitely it can be
improved, and this was also part of the feedback from the community during
the chapters conference. Definitely work need to be done in this area, too.

best,

dariusz "pundit"



On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, 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 *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
> funds came in.
>
> (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
> actively chose to ignore it.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[David Gerard]

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 came in.

(I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
actively chose to ignore it.)


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Ilario Valdelli]

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 generated anyway a wasting of time.

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.

regards


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:

>
>
> Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of
> evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is
> my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant
> projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to
> support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve
> on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic
> method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with
> high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw,
> there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than
> in the FDC).
>
>


-- 
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
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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)


> Obviously, putting together an FDC
> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
>

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 grants because the FDC results will change
everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is
a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.

>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone  wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> > Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> paid
> > WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK
>  to still be an eligible entity.
> >
> > Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> > entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >
> > ---
> > Thehelpfulone
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Samuel Klein]

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 rough
spots along the way.  Your feedback will improve the process.

This public list is a fine place for the discussion.  An ombudsperson
and a complaint process are part of the design, both public:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2


Nathan writes:
> Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
> what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like

Christophe writes:
> [We need] a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC 
> proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)

Both practical ideas.  Support for the first stages of growth should
be handled differently from later infrastructure support.

Also:
- More continuous feedback is needed.
- Eligibility should be simple and unchanging throughout the process.
- Whether or not a proposal is approved, there should be follow-up
support to help applicants figure out next steps.

Regards,
SJ

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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).

Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of
evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is
my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant
projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to
support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve
on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic
method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with
high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw,
there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than
in the FDC).

The level of expectations in terms of professional preparation of a project
also partly depends on the size of an entity. I believe that budgets below
100k should be treated with more lenience than those of over 1m, and the
medium-sized budgets in between require some medium approach as well. Yet,
ultimately, projects are written to show that the money is really worth
spending on them.

What is essential in evaluating proposals, is seeing their impact for the
movement. For instance (and bear with me for this theoretical example), I
would rather be reluctant to support a project in which the vast majority
of expenses are to cover only office work and staff, with minimal direct
relation to projects and initiatives themselves. The discussion on what
proportions of overheads to other expenses are good is ongoing and, all in
all, we probably should be flexible here (because of different labor laws,
taxation, customs, etc.). But generally, all projects funded through the
FDC should be the ones really worth funding. Also, I think it would be
really good if there was more interaction with the prospective applicants
prior to applying, so as to help them and make sure they do not invest
their time in vain. We are going to suggest changes to the FDC application
process soon (and hope to get the community's insight into this, especially
from the entities which applied).

I'm writing this reply on the spot to acknowledge the discussion, more to
follow tomorrow.

best,

dariusz ("pundit")




On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> Yes, we're still missing some steps
>
> Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created,
> a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get
> funds and so made a proposal.
> But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is
> like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining
> the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a
> specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a
> regular basis.
>
> This is not a "light" process.
>
> I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the
> FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a
> painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can
> totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC
> role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help
> Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding
> personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at
> that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though
> in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals,
> fostering Wikimedia community.
>
> And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of
> our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an
> outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team,
> we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those
> demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of
> the allocation. But we have
>
> And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always
> comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even
> leaving, you see employees leaving too.
> I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years
> ago and left last December.
>
> That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful
> one, but a needed one I believe.
>
> Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing
> pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little
> reporting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Craig Franklin]

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 futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone  wrote:

> 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?
>
> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid
> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kongshows
>  WMHK to still be an eligible entity.
>
> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious
that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
and weren't going to listen any more.

Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.


I think Erik may have unsubscribed well before that, but luckily I got 
off the list years ago so I don't know the details. ;-)
But yes, this is my point: as someone noted in the thread on internal 
wiki, "no place to work together" is the current default for WMF. If 
you're strong enough in your "market" or area of expertise, you can 
negotiate a partnership with WMF on some matters or programs (going from 
the simplest, e.g. a joint blog post, to the hardest, e.g. a FDC grant), 
and have some communication and joint work between you and (part of) the 
WMF. But in general, IMHO, it's better for one's own health to recognise 
that WMF is an external entity more or less as much as Apple, the EU or 
an oil company would be: first you develop your own strengths and then 
you go to the negotiations if you need to and have something to gain.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

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 the same level they're at.
>
>
> It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious
> that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
> about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
> and weren't going to listen any more.
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.

That is interesting. And I think it is related to some questions I
made during the FDC meeting during the Wikimedia Conference. [1]

* (Tom - WMF) How will FDC find a balance between the money that will
go to organizations from the Global South (GS) and Global North (GN)
in the mid to the long term? It is well known the bad distribution of
formal groups in these two places, having a bigger concentration in
the GN. [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

*(Tom - WMF) Measure of success: feedback to be parked. How to
distinguish the measure of success when it comes to different
backgrounds? Sometimes a small language Wikipedia can have a completly
different measure than the English version, for instance. How to
handle that? [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

And the second question for me is really important for me based on my
experience working for almost 1,5 year for the catalyst program in
Brazil.

These questions were going to be answered on Sunday and after would be
added on meta.

P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.

[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process

Tom

--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
useful than a life spent doing nothing."

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Seb35]

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  
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or  
is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round  
and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals  
and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation  
these seven figures are presented  and they can differ very much, even  
that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others  
no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very  
intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully  
paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide,  
we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a  
level of convergence in recommended funding figures.  In some cases  
there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other  
there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the  
recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases  
we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree  
with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So  
no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i  
believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I  
myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved  
in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an  
agreement with consensus.


So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive  
text about pros and cons of the FDC decision?


From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of  
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring  
that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where  
staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We  
encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and  
volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers  
leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer  
activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff  
and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth  
rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to  
the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia  
chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?


The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff  
should not be seen to  replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage  
their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are  
involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.


I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a  
contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely  
no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for  
WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance,  
financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan  
of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high  
impact".


As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload,  
they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an  
accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free  
time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money,  
they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for  
program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities  
[by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task],  
and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In  
other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal  
system next year as the FDC wants.


So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try  
to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave.


Sébastien

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[David Gerard]

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 criterion. It was, however, obvious
that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
and weren't going to listen any more.

Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 you invested so 
much energy in serving as guinea pig for the FDC process, and I 
sympathise with your decision: as volunteers, we must focus on what lets 
us achieve more.


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. On the 
bright side, experienced and valuable movement members like you and WMHK 
can always find a way to use their intelligence and have an impact 
within Wikimedia, despite external obstacles, *if* you don't rely on a 
blocker/bottleneck outside your wiki/project/chapter/group (it's the 
wiki way). Applying to FDC proved a mistake but now you and your fellow 
chapter members can support each other in reassessing priorities and 
finding a new motivation.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Christophe Henner]

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 announcement,  and a parting remark 
>> to everyone
>> As I said in my previous email:
>> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
>> with a formal process
> Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC 
> funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.

Not all, and many only for project grants not for operations grants
(like part time accounting). This is a flaw of how the process is
perceive I think.

>> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
>> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
>> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
>> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
>> requests
>
> I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you 
> mind rephrasing?
> Thanks,Abbas.

GAC is not able to provide grant for a full time employee right now.
The only way to get funds for that first employee is through the FDC.
Which, as I said earlier, is a really heavy process.

That being said, GAC can already provide funds for external
contractors on specific tasks, like accounting.

Is my rephrasing better? :s

--
Christophe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Anders Wennersten]

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 culture context is central for most of us and it is fascinating the 
broad understanding of cultural context, country specifics and specific 
chapters operations there exist among the group of us


Anders







Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-04-29 10:07:
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. It seems to me that someone has a 
feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the 
incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of 
criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, 
the personal opinion should be reduced a lot
b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these 
criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and 
it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the 
context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the 
support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong 
because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have 
opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies


I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot 
to solve conflicts.


It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about 
"peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.


Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make 
clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like 
the European chapters.


Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" 
evaluating it with European parameters!


Regards

On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:


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 is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that 
round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? 
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all 
proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the 
deliberation these seven figures are presented  and they can differ 
very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends 
full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing 
these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and 
reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the 
difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, 
which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended 
funding figures.  In some cases there is still incompatible positions 
among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern 
where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which 
also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a 
recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing 
some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the 
reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we 
are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I myself, have 
in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen 
the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement 
with consensus.



From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of 
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff 
hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular 
where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been 
leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done 
by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos 
of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate 
volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates 
of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether 
their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether 
they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC 
commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia 
Foundation (or both)?


The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed 
staff should not be seen to  replace volunteers but 
support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF 
as well when hey 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Abbas Mahmood]

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 email:
> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
> with a formal process 
Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC 
funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.
> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
> requests

I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you 
mind rephrasing?
Thanks,Abbas. 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Christophe Henner]

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
Yes, we're still missing some steps

Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created,
a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get
funds and so made a proposal.
But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is
like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining
the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a
specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a
regular basis.

This is not a "light" process.

I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the
FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a
painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can
totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC
role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help
Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding
personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at
that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though
in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals,
fostering Wikimedia community.

And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of
our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an
outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team,
we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those
demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of
the allocation. But we have

And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always
comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even
leaving, you see employees leaving too.
I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years
ago and left last December.

That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful
one, but a needed one I believe.

Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing
pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little
reporting? I do not.

Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the
process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant
to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended).
I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process
in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process
the FDC is.

As I said in my previous email:
* Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
with a formal process
* We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
requests

Best,
--
Christophe


On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard  wrote:
> 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 much as 
>> possible.
>
>
> This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
> were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
> absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
> decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
> internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
> ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
>
>
> - d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Ilario Valdelli]

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. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and 
gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best 
solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the 
submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be 
reduced a lot
b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these 
criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and 
it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the 
context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the 
support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong 
because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have 
opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies


I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to 
solve conflicts.


It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer 
review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.


Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer 
that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European 
chapters.


Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" 
evaluating it with European parameters!


Regards

On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:


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 is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that 
round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? 
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all 
proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the 
deliberation these seven figures are presented  and they can differ 
very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full 
funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these 
figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, 
each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference 
still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then 
normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures.  
In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC 
members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a 
span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed 
and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, 
and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of 
reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we 
manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the 
way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I myself, have in no other of 
the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same 
constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with 
consensus.



From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of 
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring 
that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where 
staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We 
encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and 
volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers 
leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer 
activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both 
staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their 
growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are 
leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the 
Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?


The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed 
staff should not be seen to  replace volunteers but 
support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF 
as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers 
involved.


Anders
Secretary of FDC


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
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
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


__

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Thehelpfulone]

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?

Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF 
grants staff for over a month. In addition, 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong
 shows WMHK to still be an eligible entity.

Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity 
and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?

---
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Anders Wennersten]

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 is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that 
round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? 
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals 
and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation 
these seven figures are presented  and they can differ very much, even 
that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others 
no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very 
intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully 
paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, 
we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a 
level of convergence in recommended funding figures.  In some cases 
there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other 
there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the 
recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases 
we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree 
with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So 
no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i 
believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I 
myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved 
in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an 
agreement with consensus.



From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of 
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring 
that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where 
staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We 
encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and 
volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers 
leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer 
activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff 
and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth 
rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading 
to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the 
Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?


The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff 
should not be seen to  replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage 
their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are 
involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.


Anders
Secretary of FDC


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Tilman Bayer]

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://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment
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?

>
> FDC round 2 results:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2
>
> Erik
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[David Gerard]

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 much as 
> possible.


This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Christophe Henner]

Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here.

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 much as possible.

As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of 
scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high.

What we would need:
1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...)
2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds
3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal 
or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)

We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate 
funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of 
responsability.

Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I 
hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement.

Best

Christophe
Envoye depuis mon Blackberry

-Original Message-
From: "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" 
Sender: 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 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 Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

-- 
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[MZMcBride]

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 there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent
recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single
recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote
on that? And if so, is that vote public?

From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text.

"""
We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been
taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing
functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to
focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the
Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on
having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about
the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to
consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and
whether they are leading to the most impact possible.
"""

Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia
Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is
unclear to me.

MZMcBride

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)]

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 Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

-- 
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Alex Peek]

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 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 and reduce the stress and burden imposed
> upon them.
>
> That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking
> a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a
> massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary.  Maybe it would make
> more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay
> on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a
> program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?
>
> Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
> what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look
> like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected
> vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged
> to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are
> punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and
> experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those
> experiences less painful for all involved.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Nathan]

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 and reduce the stress and burden imposed
upon them.

That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking
a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a
massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary.  Maybe it would make
more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay
on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a
program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?

Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look
like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected
vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged
to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are
punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and
experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those
experiences less painful for all involved.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Erik Moeller]

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/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment

FDC round 2 results:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2

Erik

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Fae]

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)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l