Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Christophe: One example is quite clear: if the 120% reference point was used, I would like to see that reflected in the decision arguments. That information is not present in any of the proposals' recommendations and still Dariusz explains that it was a major reason. In the French case I would have appreciated it if they could have explained a little more why they reduced it so much. As I understand from your emails it was in mutual agreement - that would have been a helpful argument. The quality of the proposed projects could have been another. In the case of Argentina I was missing arguments why it was accepted fully. Something along the lines of 'they have good plans that make a good fit with the goals they have in mind and form a stabalizing factor in the region' (making this up as I go) would be an improvement. At the same time it is hard for me to explain what is missing, as I wasn't present at the deliberations, so the best I could do is guess what could have been the reasons. Finally: perhaps I should reiterate this: I do think the FDC did good work at least until their meeting. From that moment onwards, I simply cannot judge it, because I lack the information. I am not assuming good or bad faith, and would be happy to assume all the best. But I'm mainly aiming for the future. This FDC is extremely important in the way our movement functions (or doesn't function) and will probably become even more important. To make their work accepted though, the committee should explain their reasoning well - as a committee. everyting in my personal opinion unless stated otherwise, kind regards, Lodewijk 2012/11/16 Jan-Bart de Vreede > 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 always hungers for more details, and we do > always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one > detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has > decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was > the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can > indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to > indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion. > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer > you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot > of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common > decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be > discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this > time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on > detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their > application (as will you when
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Dear Rupert, in short: we've been using two main reference points. One was the previous year costs (and trying not to choke by exceeding 120% growth by far), the other was size of the entities. Depending on the feedback from this round, the FDC may decide to change the model of posting the recommendations in the next round. This would, definitely, require working in a different timeframe, which would also help the chapters to be much more responsive about the projects beforehand (especially in this area, we've been occasionally suffering from information lags). After the first round ends, we are planning to reflect on the process and prepare recommendations for the future, both in terms of the projects' format, discussing it, providing replies, making recommendations, and publishing them. best, dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, rupert THURNER wrote: > i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially > how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. > > rupert. > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede > wrote: > > 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 always hungers for more details, and we do > always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one > detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has > decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was > the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can > indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to > indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion. > > > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer > you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot > of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common > decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be > discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this > time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on > detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their > application (as will you when you visit their proposal and talk pages) and > can hopefully move forward with the comments received. Its not the FDC's > job to make all details of an application and their opinion available to > you in a nice summary document because you don't want to read the plans... > The decisions do NOT stand on their own and are part of the FDC portal, > which provides more transparency than you have ever seen in any funds > distribution of this size anywhere in the world I would guess. > > > > And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a > funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major > factors, and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, > but there are never "10s" of factors... > > > > The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if > they don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we > ALL give during this round. > > > > Jan-Bart > > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > > > >> Hi Dariusz, > >> > >> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do > regret > >> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee > >> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget > >> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify > that. > >> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the > >> applicant?), state so. Etc. > >> > >> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have > >> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be > >> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. > >> > >> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the > FDC > >> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're > >> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members > >> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback > for > >> the next round. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Lodewijk > >> > >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> > >>> hi Lodewijk, > >>> > >>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the > >>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one > >>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the > >>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was > justified > >>> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of > >>> developmen
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hey Lodewijk, No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were to be sure I understood correctly what you meant. I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so chapters can improve from on request to the next one. That being said, I'm ok with the level of detail of the current recommendation. I mean, when I read the other chapters recommandation, I understood why the FDC make the recommandation they did. Do you have a specific case where it is not clear? PS: My questions are really that questions, as I'm part of the FDC Advisory Group the answers/feedback do really interest me :) -- Christophe On 15 November 2012 23:56, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > I would like to see that > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains > a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made. > Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be > improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general. > In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1) > they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But > it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit > etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the > opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no > committee decision. > > Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust > that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a > sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the > specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but > I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on > what led to these decisions. > > But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any > further information published by the committee (not: individual members) > that I might be missing? > > Best, > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Christophe Henner > >> What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more >> arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion? >> >> I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as >> the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to >> have those discussions summed up with the recommandation? >> >> Am I understanding your comment correctly, >> -- >> Christophe >> >> >> On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: >> > Hi Dariusz, >> > >> > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do >> regret >> > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee >> > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget >> > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. >> > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the >> > applicant?), state so. Etc. >> > >> > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have >> > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be >> > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. >> > >> > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC >> > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're >> > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members >> > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback >> for >> > the next round. >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > Lodewijk >> > >> > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >> > >> >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> >> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >> >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >> >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >> >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was >> justified >> >> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >> >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, >> which >> >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >> >> reserves, etc. >> >> >> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >> >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >> >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. >> When >> >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >> >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >> >> >> >> best, >> >> >> >> dj >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi Dariusz, >> >>> >> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >> >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that >> to >
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:01:49 + > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, > Round 1, 2012-13 > > i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially > how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. +1 Abbas. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable. rupert. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: > 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 always hungers for more details, and we do always manage > to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one detail does not > affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has decided to give a > headlines recommendation because they felt that this was the right level of > detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can indicate if they feel that > they have enough information. You are free to indicate that as well, but > please don't present it as the general opinion. > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer you > to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot of > time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common decision > was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be discussed (and > assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this time is better > spend making the deliberations rather than working on detailed reporting). A > specific chapter will know the details of their application (as will you when > you visit their proposal and talk pages) and can hopefully move forward with > the comments received. Its not the FDC's job to make all details of an > application and their opinion available to you in a nice summary document > because you don't want to read the plans… The decisions do NOT stand on their > own and are part of the FDC portal, which provides more transparency than you > have ever seen in any funds distribution of this size anywhere in the world I > would guess. > > And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a > funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major factors, > and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, but there > are never "10s" of factors... > > The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they > don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL give > during this round. > > Jan-Bart > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz, >> >> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret >> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee >> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget >> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. >> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the >> applicant?), state so. Etc. >> >> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have >> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be >> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. >> >> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC >> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're >> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members >> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for >> the next round. >> >> Kind regards, >> Lodewijk >> >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >> >>> hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified >>> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >>> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which >>> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >>> reserves, etc. >>> >>> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >>> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >>> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When >>> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >>> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dj >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk >>> wrote: >>> Hi Dariusz, it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that informatio
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
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 always hungers for more details, and we do always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion. And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their application (as will you when you visit their proposal and talk pages) and can hopefully move forward with the comments received. Its not the FDC's job to make all details of an application and their opinion available to you in a nice summary document because you don't want to read the plans… The decisions do NOT stand on their own and are part of the FDC portal, which provides more transparency than you have ever seen in any funds distribution of this size anywhere in the world I would guess. And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major factors, and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, but there are never "10s" of factors... The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL give during this round. Jan-Bart On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the > applicant?), state so. Etc. > > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. > > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for > the next round. > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified >> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >> reserves, etc. >> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >> >> best, >> >> dj >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk wrote: >> >>> Hi Dariusz, >>> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to >>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally >>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information >>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is >>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could >>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an >>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you >>> didn't trus
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Lodewijk, 15/11/2012 23:28: Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. [...] Don't worry, reading the entities' proposals and associated talks would only increase your confusion about the decisions. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi Christophe, I would like to see that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made. Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general. In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1) they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no committee decision. Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on what led to these decisions. But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any further information published by the committee (not: individual members) that I might be missing? Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/15 Christophe Henner > What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more > arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion? > > I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as > the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to > have those discussions summed up with the recommandation? > > Am I understanding your comment correctly, > -- > Christophe > > > On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > > Hi Dariusz, > > > > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do > regret > > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee > > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget > > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. > > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the > > applicant?), state so. Etc. > > > > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have > > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be > > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. > > > > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC > > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're > > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members > > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback > for > > the next round. > > > > Kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > > > >> hi Lodewijk, > >> > >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the > >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one > >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the > >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was > justified > >> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of > >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, > which > >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial > >> reserves, etc. > >> > >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that > >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed > >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. > When > >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in > >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). > >> > >> best, > >> > >> dj > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk >wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Dariusz, > >>> > >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was > >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that > to > >>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was > personally > >>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that > information > >>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a > technicality is > >>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could > >>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an > >>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you > >>> didn't trust them with the money etc). > >>> > >>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap > was > >>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I > find > >>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which > >>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has > to > >>> scale down significantly. I'm confide
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion? I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to have those discussions summed up with the recommandation? Am I understanding your comment correctly, -- Christophe On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the > applicant?), state so. Etc. > > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. > > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for > the next round. > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified >> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >> reserves, etc. >> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >> >> best, >> >> dj >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk wrote: >> >>> Hi Dariusz, >>> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to >>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally >>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information >>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is >>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could >>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an >>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you >>> didn't trust them with the money etc). >>> >>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was >>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find >>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which >>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to >>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth >>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in >>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more >>> applications. >>> >>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate >>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such >>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the >>> arguments are so shallow. >>> >>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to >>> the cases. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> >>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >>> hi Lodewijk, first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology. Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated). Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant lea
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi Dariusz, I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the applicant?), state so. Etc. Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for the next round. Kind regards, Lodewijk 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > hi Lodewijk, > > I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the > case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one > technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the > organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified > either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of > development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which > is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial > reserves, etc. > > In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that > chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed > appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When > larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in > mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). > > best, > > dj > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz, >> >> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to >> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally >> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information >> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is >> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could >> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an >> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you >> didn't trust them with the money etc). >> >> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was >> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find >> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which >> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to >> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth >> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in >> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more >> applications. >> >> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate >> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such >> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the >> arguments are so shallow. >> >> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to >> the cases. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Lodewijk >> >> >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak >> >>> hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final >>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning >>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great >>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and >>> methodology. >>> >>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they >>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum >>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted >>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC >>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the >>> organization incorporated). >>> >>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, >>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what >>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and >>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in >>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget >>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a >>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the >>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can >>> grow more harmoniously. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dar
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
hi Lodewijk, I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial reserves, etc. In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). best, dj On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was > used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to > the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally > under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information > might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is > the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could > potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an > exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you > didn't trust them with the money etc). > > But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was > not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find > the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which > could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to > scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth > discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in > their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more > applications. > > I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate > why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such > great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the > arguments are so shallow. > > I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to > the cases. > > Kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final >> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning >> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great >> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and >> methodology. >> >> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they >> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum >> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted >> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC >> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the >> organization incorporated). >> >> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which >> were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they >> asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on >> a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of >> sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small >> entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, >> which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) >> significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more >> harmoniously. >> >> best, >> >> dariusz >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some >>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every >>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> >>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede >>> Hi Everyone Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone! Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:3
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example, take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of revised budget in mind that came to that new total - it would be interesting to see that revised budget. That said, I think WMFR was one of the better explained - they felt there were serious problems with the application so want WMFR to re-apply in Round 2. Some explanation of where the $90k figure came from would be nice, but it looks like the amount they felt was needed (in addition to WMFR's reserves) in order to tide them over until the next round. On 15 November 2012 20:29, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was > used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to > the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally > under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information > might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is > the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could > potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an > exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you > didn't trust them with the money etc). > > But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was > not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find > the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which > could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to > scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth > discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in > their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more > applications. > > I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why > I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great > discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are > so shallow. > > I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the > cases. > > Kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > > > hi Lodewijk, > > > > first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final > > allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not > planning > > on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great > > many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and > > methodology. > > > > Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they > > requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum > > budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been > deducted > > for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC > > funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and > the > > organization incorporated). > > > > Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which > > were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they > > asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already > on > > a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of > > sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). > Small > > entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff > position, > > which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) > > significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more > > harmoniously. > > > > best, > > > > dariusz > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some > >> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every > >> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> Lodewijk > >> > >> > >> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede > >> > >>> Hi Everyone > >>> > >>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post > >>> created earlier today. > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ > >>> > >>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those > involved > >>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As > expressed > >>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will > refine > >>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all > >>> levels. Thanks everyone! > >>> > >>> Jan-Bart > >>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak > wrote: > >>> > >>>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi everyone, I send this mail as a representative of Wikimedia France. Wikimedia France acknowledges and agrees with the FDC decision. The arguments provided with the decision makes sense to us. Wikimedia France will submit, if possible, a request for the round 2. On behalf of Wikiemdia France board, Christophe HENNER | Membre du Conseil d'Administration --- › Mail : christophe.hen...@wikimedia.fr › Mobile : +33(0)6 29 35 65 94 › Tel : +33(0)5 62 89 12 01 › Twitter : @Wikimedia_Fr - Wikimédia France | Association pour le libre partage de la connaissance | Visitez notre blog http://blog.wikimedia.fr On 15 November 2012 21:29, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was > used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to > the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally > under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information > might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is > the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could > potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an > exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you > didn't trust them with the money etc). > > But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was > not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find > the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which > could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to > scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth > discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in > their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more > applications. > > I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why > I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great > discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are > so shallow. > > I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the > cases. > > Kind regards, > > Lodewijk > > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> hi Lodewijk, >> >> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final >> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning >> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great >> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and >> methodology. >> >> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they >> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum >> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted >> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC >> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the >> organization incorporated). >> >> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which >> were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they >> asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on >> a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of >> sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small >> entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, >> which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) >> significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more >> harmoniously. >> >> best, >> >> dariusz >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some >>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every >>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Lodewijk >>> >>> >>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede >>> Hi Everyone Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone! Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Dariusz Jemielniak > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >>>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi Dariusz, it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc). But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications. I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow. I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases. Kind regards, Lodewijk 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak > hi Lodewijk, > > first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final > allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning > on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great > many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and > methodology. > > Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they > requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum > budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted > for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC > funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the > organization incorporated). > > Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which > were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they > asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on > a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of > sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small > entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, > which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) > significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more > harmoniously. > > best, > > dariusz > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some >> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every >> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? >> >> Kind regards, >> Lodewijk >> >> >> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede >> >>> Hi Everyone >>> >>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post >>> created earlier today. >>> >>> >>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ >>> >>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved >>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed >>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine >>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all >>> levels. Thanks everyone! >>> >>> Jan-Bart >>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) >>> >>> >>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >>> >>> > -- Forwarded message -- >>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak >>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >>> > To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > >>> > >>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to >>> announce >>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >>> 2012-13. >>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these >>> recommendations by >>> > December 15, 2012. >>> > >>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a >>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from >>> 11 >>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were >>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC >>> decided >>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals >>> would >>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC >>> > s
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
hi Nathan, other WCA-related costs are clearly pertaining to the fact of WCA being organized. People need to travel, meet, etc. to make it happen. Just as Thomas mentions, there needs to be funding for stuff that is not operational yet, but being organized. Membership fees though are not such a clear thing, as some chapters did include it, some didn't, and it was also visible that the level of those membership fees is not established yet - so practically, these costs were more like conditional reserves. Also, the membership model was discussed as potentially not optimal (for accountability, transparency, etc.), and FDC could be potentially a better way to address it, once WCA establishes, after the Board eligibility approval (just as Jan-Bart points out). best, dariusz On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nathan wrote: > It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs > entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any > meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic > circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the > WMF. > > ___ > 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hey Thomas, I think I can take this one. I think that the FDC has expressed that its up to the WCA to determine its own financing model, while at the same time indicating that the membership fees model might not be the optimal solution for this, and that there are better ways) At the same time the FDC has already expressed that the current FDC framework might not work for every situation (and has recommended one or two exceptions this time around). It is also suggesting that the Board of Trustees might want to make an exception to the current rules for applying to the FDC because of the unique nature of the WCA. (and I think it is a good suggestion which is worth discussing) Jan-Bart On 15 Nov 2012, at 20:54, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" wrote: >> >> and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted >> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC >> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the >> organization incorporated). > > Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility > requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at > least two years. > ___ > 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot would happen... On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, "Nathan" wrote: > > It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs > entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any > meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic > circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the > WMF. > > ___ > 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the WMF. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" wrote: > > and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted > for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC > funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the > organization incorporated). Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at least two years. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
hi Lodewijk, first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology. Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated). Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously. best, dariusz On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi, > > From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations > got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I > assume more detailed arguments will follow? > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > > 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede > >> Hi Everyone >> >> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post >> created earlier today. >> >> >> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ >> >> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved >> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed >> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine >> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all >> levels. Thanks everyone! >> >> Jan-Bart >> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) >> >> >> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >> >> > -- Forwarded message -- >> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak >> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >> > To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > >> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce >> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >> 2012-13. >> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations >> by >> > December 15, 2012. >> > >> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a >> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 >> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were >> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided >> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals >> would >> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC >> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these >> proposals >> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement >> goals. >> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San >> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed >> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each >> applying >> > entity. >> > >> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the >> process >> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what >> works in >> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide >> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these >> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process >> on-wiki >> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in >> our >> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >> > >> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should >> be >> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the >> complaint >> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial >> Operation of >> > the FDC [4]: >> > >> > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary >> > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC >> > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >> > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal >> page >> > designated for this purpose [5] >> > - These board representatives will pre
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi, >From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? Kind regards, Lodewijk 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede > Hi Everyone > > Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post > created earlier today. > > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ > > I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved > in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed > earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine > the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all > levels. Thanks everyone! > > Jan-Bart > (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars) > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > From: Dariusz Jemielniak > > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM > > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 > > To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce > > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. > > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations > by > > December 15, 2012. > > > > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a > > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 > > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were > > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided > > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals > would > > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC > > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these > proposals > > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. > > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San > > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed > > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each > applying > > entity. > > > > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the > process > > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works > in > > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide > > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these > > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki > > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our > > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the > > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. > > > > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should > be > > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the > complaint > > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation > of > > the FDC [4]: > > > > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary > > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC > > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) > > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal > page > > designated for this purpose [5] > > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF > > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. > > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a > > funding-seeking entity. > > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission > of > > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC > > November 22) > > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a > > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. > > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an > > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in > > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra > > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated > by > > the FDC's initial recommendation. > > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation > if > > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. > > > > > > > > on behalf of the FDC > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) > > > > [1] > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 > > > > > > > > [3] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process > > > > > > > > [4] > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Hi Everyone Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone! Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars….) On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Dariusz Jemielniak > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 > To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by > December 15, 2012. > > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying > entity. > > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. > > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of > the FDC [4]: > > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page > designated for this purpose [5] > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a > funding-seeking entity. > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC > November 22) > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by > the FDC's initial recommendation. > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. > > > > on behalf of the FDC > > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 > > > > > [2] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 > > > > [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process > > > > [4] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process > > > > [5] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board > > > > > > > -- > > __ > 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
-- Forwarded message -- From: Dariusz Jemielniak Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by December 15, 2012. The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying entity. The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of the FDC [4]: - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio) - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking entity. - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22) - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. on behalf of the FDC Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process [5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board -- __ 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
