[Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations: Round 2, 2017-18

[Bishakha Datta]

Dear Wikimedians,

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to make
recommendations about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy.  This is now the
12th round of allocations made by the FDC, and we met in person from June
1-3, 2018 in Lisbon to deliberate on 5 proposals submitted in this round.


We would like to thank all of the participating organizations for the hard
work they put into this round’s proposals.

Our recommendations for Round 2 2017-2018 on the annual plan grants to the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta.[1] The
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by June 30, 2018.

We received grant requests for approximately USD 1,289,978 this round.
Before we met, committee members reviewed all of the proposals and
documents submitted.  We were assisted in this review with input from the
FDC staff assessments which included analysis on impact, finances, and
programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.

There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
recommendations. Appeals may be filed with the Wikimedia Foundation Board
before 8 June 2018. Anyone can file a complaint about the FDC process [2]
with the Ombudsperson at any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki. The Ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and
investigate as needed.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board will publish its decision on this and all
recommendations by June 30, 2018.


On behalf of the FDC,


Bishakha Datta
FDC Chair


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2017-2018_Round_2

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations, Round 1 2017-18

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Agree with Chris.

Thank you dear FDC members and staff for the great work: your analysis,
comments, and insight.
I know how hard and complicated is Round 1, and how much time each one of
you invested before and during the deliberations. Once again, thank you.

And Bishaka - congratulations on your new role!



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Thanks FDC for your hard work on the recommendations, and It's great to see
> so many applicants earning full funding this time!
>
> Chris
>
> On 20 Nov 2017 5:43 pm, "Bishakha Datta"  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to make
> > recommendations about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
> achieve
> > the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy.  This is now the
> > 11th round of allocations made by the FDC, and we met in person from
> > November 17-20, 2017 in Madrid to deliberate on 9 proposals submitted
> this
> > round. Wikimedia Deutschland's annual plan will be reviewed separately.
> >
> >
> > We would like to thank all of the participating organizations for the
> hard
> > work they put into this round’s proposals.
> >
> > Our recommendations for Round 1 2017-2018 on the annual plan grants to
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta.[1]
> The
> > Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by December 31,
> > 2017.
> >
> > We received grant requests for approximately USD 2,766,000 this round.
> > Before we met, committee members reviewed all of the proposals and
> > documents submitted.  We were assisted in this review with input from the
> > FDC staff assessments which included analysis on impact, finances, and
> > programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
> >
> > As you may know, there is a formal process to submit complaints or
> appeals
> > about these recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
> >
> > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s
> > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> by
> > 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2017 in accord with the appeal process outlined
> in
> > the FDC Framework [2]. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s
> > recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
> > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC,
> > Nataliia Tymkiv and Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted
> > on-wiki, and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
> > applicant. The Wikimedia Foundation Board will publish its decision on
> this
> > and all recommendations by December 31, 2017.
> >
> > Anyone can file a complaint about the FDC process [3] with the
> Ombudsperson
> > at any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. The
> > Ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as
> > needed.
> >
> > On behalf of the FDC,
> >
> > Bishakha Datta
> > FDC Chair
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_
> recommendations/2017-2018_
> > Round_1
> >
> >
> > [2]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_
> Dissemination_Committee/
> > Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC
> >
> >
> > [3]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_
> > about_the_FDC_process
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations, Round 1 2017-18

[Chris Keating]

Thanks FDC for your hard work on the recommendations, and It's great to see
so many applicants earning full funding this time!

Chris

On 20 Nov 2017 5:43 pm, "Bishakha Datta"  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to make
> recommendations about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
> the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy.  This is now the
> 11th round of allocations made by the FDC, and we met in person from
> November 17-20, 2017 in Madrid to deliberate on 9 proposals submitted this
> round. Wikimedia Deutschland's annual plan will be reviewed separately.
>
>
> We would like to thank all of the participating organizations for the hard
> work they put into this round’s proposals.
>
> Our recommendations for Round 1 2017-2018 on the annual plan grants to the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta.[1] The
> Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by December 31,
> 2017.
>
> We received grant requests for approximately USD 2,766,000 this round.
> Before we met, committee members reviewed all of the proposals and
> documents submitted.  We were assisted in this review with input from the
> FDC staff assessments which included analysis on impact, finances, and
> programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
>
> As you may know, there is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals
> about these recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
>
> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s
> recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
> 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2017 in accord with the appeal process outlined in
> the FDC Framework [2]. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s
> recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC,
> Nataliia Tymkiv and Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted
> on-wiki, and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
> applicant. The Wikimedia Foundation Board will publish its decision on this
> and all recommendations by December 31, 2017.
>
> Anyone can file a complaint about the FDC process [3] with the Ombudsperson
> at any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. The
> Ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as
> needed.
>
> On behalf of the FDC,
>
> Bishakha Datta
> FDC Chair
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2017-2018_
> Round_1
>
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/
> Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC
>
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_
> about_the_FDC_process
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations, Round 1 2017-18

[Bishakha Datta]

Dear Wikimedians,

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to make
recommendations about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy.  This is now the
11th round of allocations made by the FDC, and we met in person from
November 17-20, 2017 in Madrid to deliberate on 9 proposals submitted this
round. Wikimedia Deutschland's annual plan will be reviewed separately.


We would like to thank all of the participating organizations for the hard
work they put into this round’s proposals.

Our recommendations for Round 1 2017-2018 on the annual plan grants to the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta.[1] The
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by December 31,
2017.

We received grant requests for approximately USD 2,766,000 this round.
Before we met, committee members reviewed all of the proposals and
documents submitted.  We were assisted in this review with input from the
FDC staff assessments which included analysis on impact, finances, and
programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.

As you may know, there is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals
about these recommendations. Here are the steps for both:

Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s
recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
23:59 UTC on 8 December 2017 in accord with the appeal process outlined in
the FDC Framework [2]. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s
recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC,
Nataliia Tymkiv and Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki, and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant. The Wikimedia Foundation Board will publish its decision on this
and all recommendations by December 31, 2017.

Anyone can file a complaint about the FDC process [3] with the Ombudsperson
at any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. The
Ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as
needed.

On behalf of the FDC,

Bishakha Datta
FDC Chair


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2017-2018_Round_1


[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC


[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Bishakha Datta]

As one of the former board liaisons to the FDC, this is one of the threads
I regularly follow on wikimedia-l.

Am so happy to see the FDC going from strength to strength. It remains a
radical exercise in volunteer-led funding allocation, a model that is
unusual to begin with, and that I've rarely seen operate with such rigour.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any other volunteer-led funding
models. Are there others?

Congratulations to all of you who make it happen,
Bishakha

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> For the ones who do not read the complete text, i see the key sentences to
> be (for WMF and the Board)
>
> *WMF to view its actions as leveraging a /network effect/ utilising the
> resources of the global movement.
>
> *For an international organization [Board&WMF], there is an apparent
> overall lack of global diversity
>
> I do hope that these key needs will be reflected not only in operative
> actions but also in the recruitment of a new ED.
>
> A resource centre in SF*combined* with the people, local organisations and
> learnings from all over our movement will be a formula for success that
> will enable us to reach our vision
>
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2016-05-15 kl. 21:55, skrev Anders Wennersten:
>
>> Thanks, for once, again a very thorough work done by FDC.
>>
>> I find it very encouraging to see that this committee is able to continue
>> with its good quality in its assessments and also to see it growing as a
>> role model in integrity and also truly representing the community in values
>> and experience gained from activities from our affiliates/chapters.
>>
>> I do hope that you, both as a role model and in your hand fast
>> recommendations, can help both the Board and WMF to also evolve into role
>> models and fully taking in the learning from all parts of the movement. And
>> that you will continue guide and follow up on the work in the chapters
>> having employees.
>>
>> Anders
>>
>> Now having read through all text twice, and enjoyed it a lot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 2016-05-15 kl. 19:29, skrev matanya moses:
>>
>>> Hello Wikimedians,
>>>
>>> Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help make
>>> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
>>> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For this round, we met
>>> in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five plans and proposals, which
>>> were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the
>>> Centre for Internet and Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this
>>> round for submitting these proposals.
>>>
>>> We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan
>>> grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The Board will
>>> review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.
>>>
>>> This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, and
>>> we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants (though
>>> grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we reviewed all
>>> of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We were assisted in
>>> this review with some input from the FDC staff assessments and analysis on
>>> impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
>>> recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
>>>
>>> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round
>>> 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
>>> by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal process outlined
>>> in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
>>> should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
>>> non-voting WMF Board representative to the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The
>>> appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board
>>> Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision
>>> on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2016.
>>>
>>> Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by
>>> anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should
>>> be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly document the
>>> complaint, and investigate as needed.
>>>
>>> On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home countries,
>>> so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,
>>>
>>> On behalf of the FDC,
>>>
>>> Matanya [1]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Anders Wennersten]

For the ones who do not read the complete text, i see the key sentences 
to be (for WMF and the Board)


*WMF to view its actions as leveraging a /network effect/ utilising the 
resources of the global movement.


*For an international organization [Board&WMF], there is an apparent 
overall lack of global diversity


I do hope that these key needs will be reflected not only in operative 
actions but also in the recruitment of a new ED.


A resource centre in SF*combined* with the people, local organisations 
and learnings from all over our movement will be a formula for success 
that will enable us to reach our vision



Anders




Den 2016-05-15 kl. 21:55, skrev Anders Wennersten:

Thanks, for once, again a very thorough work done by FDC.

I find it very encouraging to see that this committee is able to 
continue with its good quality in its assessments and also to see it 
growing as a role model in integrity and also truly representing the 
community in values and experience gained from activities from our 
affiliates/chapters.


I do hope that you, both as a role model and in your hand fast 
recommendations, can help both the Board and WMF to also evolve into 
role models and fully taking in the learning from all parts of the 
movement. And that you will continue guide and follow up on the work 
in the chapters having employees.


Anders

Now having read through all text twice, and enjoyed it a lot






Den 2016-05-15 kl. 19:29, skrev matanya moses:

Hello Wikimedians,

Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help 
make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to 
achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For 
this round, we met in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five 
plans and proposals, which were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, 
Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the Centre for Internet and 
Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the Wikimedia 
Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this round 
for submitting these proposals.


We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual 
plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The 
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.


This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, 
and we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants 
(though grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we 
reviewed all of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We 
were assisted in this review with some input from the FDC staff 
assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well 
as community comments on the proposals.


There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these 
recommendations. Here are the steps for both:


Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s 
Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives 
to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal 
process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge 
the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word 
summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representative to 
the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, 
[4] and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking 
applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all 
recommendations by 1 July 2016.


Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by 
anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint 
should be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly 
document the complaint, and investigate as needed.


On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home 
countries, so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,


On behalf of the FDC,

Matanya [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Thank you Anders and Dariusz for the warm words.

The FDC invested a lot of time to write the recommendations, espcially in
regards to the WMF plan. Good to know that you've read the entire (long)
document :)


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Many thanks for the hard work. As I've been an observer to this round, and
> as a former chair of the FDC for six rounds, I can attest that you have
> done a very good job, discussing the details of all proposals.
>
> While people may disagree with your recommendations or opinions, the
> diligent approach and due care are, in my view, indisputable.
>
> Best,
>
> Dj
> 15.05.2016 7:30 PM "matanya moses"  napisał(a):
>
> > Hello Wikimedians,
> >
> > Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For this round, we
> met
> > in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five plans and proposals, which
> > were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France,
> the
> > Centre for Internet and Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this
> > round for submitting these proposals.
> >
> > We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan
> > grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The Board will
> > review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.
> >
> > This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, and
> > we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants (though
> > grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we reviewed all
> > of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We were assisted in
> > this review with some input from the FDC staff assessments and analysis
> on
> > impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
> > proposals.
> >
> > There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
> > recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
> >
> > Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> > recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC
> by
> > 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal process outlined
> in
> > the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
> > should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
> > non-voting WMF Board representative to the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The
> > appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the
> Board
> > Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision
> > on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2016.
> >
> > Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by
> > anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint
> should
> > be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly document
> the
> > complaint, and investigate as needed.
> >
> > On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home countries,
> > so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,
> >
> > On behalf of the FDC,
> >
> > Matanya [1]
> >
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Many thanks for the hard work. As I've been an observer to this round, and
as a former chair of the FDC for six rounds, I can attest that you have
done a very good job, discussing the details of all proposals.

While people may disagree with your recommendations or opinions, the
diligent approach and due care are, in my view, indisputable.

Best,

Dj
15.05.2016 7:30 PM "matanya moses"  napisał(a):

> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For this round, we met
> in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five plans and proposals, which
> were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the
> Centre for Internet and Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the
> Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to thank all the organizations this
> round for submitting these proposals.
>
> We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan
> grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The Board will
> review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.
>
> This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, and
> we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants (though
> grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we reviewed all
> of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We were assisted in
> this review with some input from the FDC staff assessments and analysis on
> impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
> proposals.
>
> There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these
> recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
>
> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
> recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
> 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in
> the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation
> should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two
> non-voting WMF Board representative to the FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The
> appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board
> Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. The Board will publish its decision
> on this and all recommendations by 1 July 2016.
>
> Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by
> anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint should
> be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly document the
> complaint, and investigate as needed.
>
> On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home countries,
> so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,
>
> On behalf of the FDC,
>
> Matanya [1]
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[Anders Wennersten]

Thanks, for once, again a very thorough work done by FDC.

I find it very encouraging to see that this committee is able to 
continue with its good quality in its assessments and also to see it 
growing as a role model in integrity and also truly representing the 
community in values and experience gained from activities from our 
affiliates/chapters.


I do hope that you, both as a role model and in your hand fast 
recommendations, can help both the Board and WMF to also evolve into 
role models and fully taking in the learning from all parts of the 
movement. And that you will continue guide and follow up on the work in 
the chapters having employees.


Anders

Now having read through all text twice, and enjoyed it a lot






Den 2016-05-15 kl. 19:29, skrev matanya moses:

Hello Wikimedians,

Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help 
make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to 
achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For 
this round, we met in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five 
plans and proposals, which were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia, 
Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the Centre for Internet and 
Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the Wikimedia Foundation. 
We would like to thank all the organizations this round for submitting 
these proposals.


We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual 
plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The 
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.


This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD, 
and we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants 
(though grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we 
reviewed all of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We 
were assisted in this review with some input from the FDC staff 
assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as 
community comments on the proposals.


There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these 
recommendations. Here are the steps for both:


Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s 
Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives 
to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal 
process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge 
the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word 
summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representative to the 
FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] 
and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking 
applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all 
recommendations by 1 July 2016.


Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by 
anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint 
should be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly 
document the complaint, and investigate as needed.


On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home 
countries, so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,


On behalf of the FDC,

Matanya [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 2

[matanya moses]

Hello Wikimedians,

Twice a year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets to help  
make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to  
achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. For  
this round, we met in person from May 13-15 to deliberate on five  
plans and proposals, which were submitted by Wikimedia Armenia,  
Wikimedia Norge, Wikimedia France, the Centre for Internet and  
Society, as well as the draft annual plan of the Wikimedia Foundation.  
We would like to thank all the organizations this round for submitting  
these proposals.


We have posted our Round 2 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual  
plan grants to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [1] The  
Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by July 1, 2016.


This round, we received grant requests of roughly $1.25 million USD,  
and we have recommended roughly $1.14 million in annual plan grants  
(though grants are made in local currency). Before we met in May, we  
reviewed all of the proposals and additional documents submitted. We  
were assisted in this review with some input from the FDC staff  
assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as  
community comments on the proposals.


There is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals about these  
recommendations. Here are the steps for both:


Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s  
Round 2 recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives  
to the FDC by 23:59 UTC on 8 June 2016 in accordance with the appeal  
process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge  
the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word  
summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representative to the  
FDC, Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]  
and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking  
applicant. The Board will publish its decision on this and all  
recommendations by 1 July 2016.


Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process can be filed by  
anyone with the Ombudsperson and can be made any time. The complaint  
should be submitted on wiki, as well. The ombudsperson will publicly  
document the complaint, and investigate as needed.


On a side note, all FDC members are flying back to their home  
countries, so we might be able to respond only in a day or two,


On behalf of the FDC,

Matanya [1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_2


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations will be posted on June 1, 2015

[matanya]

Dear Wikimedians, 

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is meeting to review proposals 
submitted for Annual Plan Grants in the Round 2 2014-2015. [1] We are meeting 
in Berlin to discuss these proposals on May 12-14, 2015. 

We will be publishing our recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees for 
funding allocations on June 1, 2015, as per the schedule noted on the calendar. 
[2]   
Matanya Moses, secretary to the committee, on behalf of the FDC 

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2)
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar 
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Chris Keating]

Dear all,

The Wikimedia UK board discussed the FDC's allocation proposals this
morning. We thank the FDC and the staff involved in the process for their
hard work and detailed consideration.

We accept their proposed allocation. We also had a productive discussion in
the light of the FDC's feedback on the deliverability of aspects of our
plan, and will bear these in mind as we develop our 2013 budget. We will be
providing some feedback about aspects of the process in the next couple of
weeks.

Regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Thomas Dalton]

On Nov 17, 2012 7:28 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:
>
>> I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
>> discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
>> hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
>> thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
>> thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
>> detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
>
>
> You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption
in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a body,
i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down.

I don't they just plucked the numbers out of thin air.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:

I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).


You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption 
in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a 
body, i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down.


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Osmar Valdebenito]

Yes, I know ;)
But it certainly has a effect, larger or smaller.
Probably, you would be faster if you can write a report in Polish and you
discussed with others in Polish.


2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak 

> lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of
> the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an
> excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the
> entities.
>
> dariusz
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito <
> os...@wikimediachile.cl> wrote:
>
>> I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you
>> say it is irrelevant? Boo...
>> (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the
>> movement, not only about the FDC)
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak 
>>
>>>
>>> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us
>>> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with
>>> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to
>>> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the
>>> message to the letter.
>>>
>>> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work
>>> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and
>>> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought
>>> alternatives to  the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own
>>> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that
>>> we
>>> are fine with.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to
>>> provide
>>> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that
>>> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and
>>> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make
>>> sure
>>> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
>>>
>>> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to
>>> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions,
>>> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely
>>> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making
>>> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and
>>> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the
>>> chapters' side).
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Dariusz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
>>> would
>>> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change
>>> and so
>>> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
>>> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
>>> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each
>>> chapter,
>>> > but about the process as a whole.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
>>> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you
>>> can't
>>> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
>>> >
>>> > Osmar Valdebenito G.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 
>>> >
>>> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
>>> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that
>>> she
>>> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
>>> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed.
>>> I
>>> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much
>>> more
>>> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
>>> > >
>>> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A
>>> well
>>> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
>>> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
>>> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
>>> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
>>> > > time is saved by writing good reports.
>>> > >
>>> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
>>> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
>>> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
>>> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
>>> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what
>>> it
>>> > > is actually meant to achieve.
>>> > >
>>> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
>>> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
>>> > > worth doing properly.
>>> > >
>>> > > ___
>>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > Unsubscribe:
>>> https://li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of
the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an
excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the
entities.

dariusz


On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
wrote:

> I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you
> say it is irrelevant? Boo...
> (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the
> movement, not only about the FDC)
>
>
> 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak 
>
>>
>> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us
>> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with
>> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to
>> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the
>> message to the letter.
>>
>> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work
>> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and
>> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought
>> alternatives to  the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own
>> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that
>> we
>> are fine with.
>>
>> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to
>> provide
>> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that
>> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and
>> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure
>> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
>>
>> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to
>> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions,
>> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely
>> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making
>> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and
>> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the
>> chapters' side).
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Dariusz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
>> would
>> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and
>> so
>> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
>> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
>> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each
>> chapter,
>> > but about the process as a whole.
>> >
>> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
>> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you
>> can't
>> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
>> >
>> > Osmar Valdebenito G.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 
>> >
>> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
>> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
>> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
>> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
>> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
>> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
>> > >
>> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
>> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
>> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
>> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
>> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
>> > > time is saved by writing good reports.
>> > >
>> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
>> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
>> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
>> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
>> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
>> > > is actually meant to achieve.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
>> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
>> > > worth doing properly.
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __
>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> profesor zarządzania
>> kierownik 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Osmar Valdebenito]

I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you
say it is irrelevant? Boo...
(by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement,
not only about the FDC)

2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak 

>
> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us
> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with
> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to
> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the
> message to the letter.
>
> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work
> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and
> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought
> alternatives to  the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own
> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we
> are fine with.
>
> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide
> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that
> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and
> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure
> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
>
> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to
> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions,
> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely
> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making
> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and
> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the
> chapters' side).
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
> wrote:
>
> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
> would
> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and
> so
> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter,
> > but about the process as a whole.
> >
> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
> >
> > Osmar Valdebenito G.
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 
> >
> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
> > >
> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
> > > time is saved by writing good reports.
> > >
> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
> > > is actually meant to achieve.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
> > > worth doing properly.
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> __
> 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
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Osmar Valdebenito]

They did their job to evaluate more than 10 extensive applications, make
their recommendations and provide a long report. They have even answered
the questions and probably will be able to do if you have more questions.
That was they work as volunteer and they did it.
Probably everybody would like something different (as more details about
every chapters) but they are not our employees and they have their right to
say "We think that is enough".

And once again, I want to remember that not everybody here speaks or write
English as a native. Sometimes is really easy to demand people to write
long reports, speak and engage in discussions when you have the privilege
to be a speaker of the "global language", but it is not easy for all of us.
This is something that must be considered if we are talking about "global
movement", "inclusion of developing countries" and so on.

Osmar Valdebenito G.


2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 

> On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito 
> wrote:
> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
>
> Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are
> making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just
> volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here.
> Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation
> to do it.
>
> I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job -
> they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is,
> at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't
> an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we
> wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff
> can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers
> do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still
> require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to
> find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we
> need to re-think it.
>
> ___
> 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

thanks, Osmar.

I don't have to state the obvious, that over the last couple of weeks we've
been putting several hours per day into the FDC process, besides our real
jobs, and besides the 4-day session we held. This is what needed to be done
and we have no complaints and Thomas is right that being a volunteer is no
excuse. It actually means that we participate voluntary, by free will, and
without lowering any of the professional standards we bring from our real
life.

Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us
have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with
NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to
it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the
message to the letter.

One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work
relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and
different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought
alternatives to  the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own
models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we
are fine with.

I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide
detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that
we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and
rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure
that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.

However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to
make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions,
is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely
do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making
efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and
collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the
chapters' side).

best,

Dariusz




On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
wrote:

> I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would
> love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so
> on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
> where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
> consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter,
> but about the process as a whole.
>
> Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
>
> Osmar Valdebenito G.
>
>
> 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 
>
> > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
> > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
> > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
> > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
> > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
> > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
> >
> > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
> > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
> > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
> > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
> > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
> > time is saved by writing good reports.
> >
> > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
> > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
> > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
> > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
> > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
> > is actually meant to achieve.
> >
> > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
> > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
> > worth doing properly.
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
>
>


-- 

__
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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Dariusz, dear Jan-Bart,

Thank you very much for the hard work, you are volunteers as we all
are. I am also admiring your insight and - pacience.

A short note on the WCA: The WCA has never asked contributions from
the member chapters, and there is still no budget. We will see how it
will be financed in future, and I am confident that there will be
found a reasonable solution.

Kind regards
Ziko

-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Thomas Dalton]

On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito  wrote:
> Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.

Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are
making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just
volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here.
Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation
to do it.

I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job -
they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is,
at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't
an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we
wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff
can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers
do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still
require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to
find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we
need to re-think it.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Osmar Valdebenito]

I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter,
but about the process as a whole.

Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.

Osmar Valdebenito G.


2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton 

> I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
> discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
> hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
> thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
> thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
> detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
>
> Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
> written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
> documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
> should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
> but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
> time is saved by writing good reports.
>
> It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
> never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
> regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
> meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
> so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
> is actually meant to achieve.
>
> Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
> although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
> worth doing properly.
>
> ___
> 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Thomas Dalton]

I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more
detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).

Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well
written report can be read in isolation (with references to other
documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details
should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly,
but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of
time is saved by writing good reports.

It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we
never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a
regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board
meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it,
so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it
is actually meant to achieve.

Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people,
although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is
worth doing properly.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

[Jan-bart de Vreede]

On 16 nov. 2012, at 10:18, Lodewijk  wrote:

> Hi Jan-Bart,
> 
> I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be
> subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who
> else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that
> anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that you
> experienced my feedback in such negative way.

Hey

So no its not obvious that you were stating your own opinion, you often 
formulate things in such as way that they are not presented as your personal 
opinion but attempt instead to somehow come across as the "general" opinion. 
Thats at least how I read them.


> 
> But similarly, I wouldn't want to mistake the opinion of individual FDC
> members for the reasoning of the committee as a whole. The comments made on
> the talk pages are made by individuals (sometimes not even members), and
> not by the committee - that is why I dont want to assume that they are
> shared by the committee as a whole.

You don't have to :)


> 
> As I understand the process, there was a big preperation - that preperation
> is well documented. Also, the way the process has been followed (in all
> it's abstractism) has been well documented - this is helpful for
> understanding the process better next time of course and valuable. However,
> then there is this 4 day meeting. And suddenly, all information available
> seems to be missing - unless I'm overlooking something. I know you have
> been present at the meeting, so you might read things differently than I
> do. But from the arguments given I really have a hard time understanding
> what the reasons have been regarding the different decisions. This is not a
> simple general hunger for more details (which is there as well, I'll agree
> on that), but it is just not being able to understand.
> 

So in the build up to the meeting on the 26th of October there was a lot of 
public part to the process. The meeting was completed 2 weeks ago and it took 
two weeks to finalize the recommendations in writing, come to common language 
etc. This is a 2 week period... how can "all information suddenly be missing"? 
And again. Getting the FDC to agree on wording etc. is essential, and the FDC 
decided to agree on the "main" issues per application (and in some case that 
might prove not to be enough


> I do not disagree that the time spent asking questions publicly was worth
> while - but this is all (as far as I understand it) before the 4 day
> retreat. Before actual committee decisions started.
> 

the reason why the deadline for the recommendations was set for the 15th of 
November was to allow the FDC members to document their decisions and their 
reasoning. That takes time (and it not a lack of information, it is taking the 
time needed to carefully go through everything). This is the information level 
they decided on, if you feel that more is needed, that is your opinion but 
please realize that a team working across different time zones only has so much 
time to work together (and that all these people are volunteers who took time 
to travel to san francisco to spend four days in a stuffy meeting room...) But 
I will let them answer for themselves if they feel they want to.


> Now I can indeed go to the talk pages and proposals, combine it with some
> general comments made by Dariusz and probably come to an 80% understanding
> by guessing. However, call me silly but I wouldn't like to rely on the
> quality of my own guesswork to understand the committee's decision.
> 

You don't have to , I think that the proposals + Questions asked + staff 
assesments + FDC comments will get you there in 95% of the cases. But then 
again, I might be wrong, and in some cases the FDC does need to share more 
information. As you know we have entered a 7 day period in which the chapters 
can comment on the recommendations, and we can see if the board requires more 
information before being able to approve the FDC recommendations (in which case 
the board will publicly ask for that information and the FDC will publicly 
share that information (if not limited by some confidentiality)

Finally: just to warn you: the FDC has now posted its recommendations, there 
are seven days during which participants can comment/object... and the board 
decides by December 15th. While that decision might take place before the 15th 
of december, it is likely to be two or three weeks away from today THIS IS 
NOT AN INFORMATION BLACKOUT! It is not a lack of transparency... its just the 
time we need to read through and discuss and finally vote. 

Jan-Bart






> 
>> Hey Lodewijk,
>> 
>> So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the
>> situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent
>> and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and
>> YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is
>> true. A movement like ours a

[Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations

[Itzik Edri]

Finally they are here...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l