Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gregory Varnum]

Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the 
board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled 
community members.

IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should 
do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal 
responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they 
are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively 
engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, 
I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than 
create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s 
due diligence for them.

-greg (User:Pine)

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> 
> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
> review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
> Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
> organization that has a similar scale.
> 
> Lila
> 
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
>> similar
>>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
>>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
>>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
>>> 
>> 
>> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
>> me goosebumps...
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
>>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
>>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
>>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
>>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
>>> 
>> 
>> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
>> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
>> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
>> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
>> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>> 
>> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
>> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
>> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>> 
>> Dariusz
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> 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, 
> 


___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Lila Tretikov]

One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
organization that has a similar scale.

Lila

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
> similar
> > composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
> > some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
> > could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
> >
>
> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
> me goosebumps...
>
>
> >
> > I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
> > the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
> > the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
> > Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
> > whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
> >
>
> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>
> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>
> Dariusz
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

Based on what I heard from Anasuya and members of the FDC over the years, I
feel that asking the FDC to take on the WMF budget is too much of a scope
expansion, unless a  third round of reviews is added each year and is
dedicated to the WMF budget. The only realistic alternative that I can see
is a new committee, which I think would be better anyway because the
members of that committee could develop deep familiarity with the WMF
budget. WMF is an unusually complex organization so this added depth would
be valuable. Also, this would let the FDC staff stay completely clear of
the awkward position of reviewing the budgets of their colleagues elsewhere
in WMF including the budgets of their managers.

Pine
On Nov 27, 2015 5:51 AM, "Dariusz Jemielniak"  wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
> similar
> > composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
> > some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
> > could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
> >
>
> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
> me goosebumps...
>
>
> >
> > I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
> > the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
> > the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
> > Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
> > whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
> >
>
> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>
> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>
> Dariusz
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar
> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
>

It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
me goosebumps...


>
> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
> whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
>

I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.

In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.

Dariusz
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gregory Varnum]

I meant User:Varnent.  :)

I blame the turkey chemicals. :p

-greg (User:Varnent)

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum  wrote:
> 
> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the 
> board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled 
> community members.
> 
> IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee 
> should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their 
> primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I 
> would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they 
> are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending 
> that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a 
> whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing 
> their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
> 
> -greg (User:Pine)
> 
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>> 
>> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
>> review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
>> Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
>> organization that has a similar scale.
>> 
>> Lila
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>> 
 Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
>>> similar
 composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
 some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
 could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
 
>>> 
>>> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
>>> me goosebumps...
>>> 
>>> 
 
 I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
 the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
 the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
 Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
 whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
 
>>> 
>>> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
>>> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
>>> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
>>> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
>>> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>>> 
>>> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
>>> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
>>> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>>> 
>>> Dariusz
>>> ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>>> 
>> ___
>> 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, 
>> 
> 


___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about
that.

Pine

On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the
Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the
Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that
transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any
case, the WMF published plan was far below the standard of documentation
that one would expect of the largest organization in the movement, so I
think that a change is in order. It sounds like there is now consensus that
there should be change, which itself is progress. The nature and extent of
the changes that are acutually made will tell us how serious WMF is about
transparency and good governance.
>
> Pine
>
> On Nov 27, 2015 11:53 AM, "Gregory Varnum" 
wrote:
>>
>> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of
the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some
skilled community members.
>>
>> IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee
should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their
primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I
would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they
are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending
that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a
whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are
doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
>>
>> -greg (User:Pine)
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>> >
>> > One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
>> > review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature
of
>> > Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
>> > organization that has a similar scale.
>> >
>> > Lila
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
>> >> similar
>> >>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would
include
>> >>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget
Committee
>> >>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee
gives
>> >> me goosebumps...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core"
division of
>> >>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the
performance of
>> >>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The
Budget
>> >>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board
as a
>> >>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most
common
>> >> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's
competence to
>> >> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited
time,
>> >> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is
also part
>> >> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>> >>
>> >> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example -
it
>> >> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy,
goals,
>> >> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the
WMF.
>> >>
>> >> Dariusz
>> >> ___
>> >> 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,
>> >> 
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > 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,

>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the
Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the
Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that
transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any
case, the WMF published plan was far below the standard of documentation
that one would expect of the largest organization in the movement, so I
think that a change is in order. It sounds like there is now consensus that
there should be change, which itself is progress. The nature and extent of
the changes that are acutually made will tell us how serious WMF is about
transparency and good governance.

Pine
On Nov 27, 2015 11:53 AM, "Gregory Varnum"  wrote:

> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of
> the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some
> skilled community members.
>
> IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee
> should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their
> primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I
> would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they
> are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending
> that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a
> whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are
> doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
>
> -greg (User:Pine)
>
> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> >
> > One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
> > review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
> > Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
> > organization that has a similar scale.
> >
> > Lila
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
> >> similar
> >>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
> >>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
> >>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee
> gives
> >> me goosebumps...
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division
> of
> >>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance
> of
> >>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
> >>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board
> as a
> >>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most
> common
> >> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence
> to
> >> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited
> time,
> >> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also
> part
> >> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
> >>
> >> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
> >> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
> >> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
> >>
> >> Dariusz
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

yes, and I agree that this is a very good idea to ponder. It addresses a
couple of problems at once (including a major one, of FDC ability and
capacity to tackle WMF as well).

dj



On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
> review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
> Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
> organization that has a similar scale.
>
> Lila
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
>> similar
>> > composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
>> > some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
>> > could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
>> >
>>
>> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee
>> gives
>> me goosebumps...
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
>> > the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance
>> of
>> > the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
>> > Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as
>> a
>> > whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
>> >
>>
>> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
>> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
>> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited
>> time,
>> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also
>> part
>> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>>
>> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
>> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
>> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>>
>> Dariusz
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>
>


-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

I think the 3rd party review might work, although it might be costly in
terms of consulting fees.

As a part of the 3rd party review, I hope that there would be an analysis
of the costs and benefits of moving WMF to a more economical location than
San Francisco.

Pine
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Chris Keating]

I wondered if anyone from FDC is going to respond to this?
On 26 Nov 2015 17:04, "Nicola Zeuner"  wrote:

> Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community
> discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of
> community funds. That's the beauty of a community reviewed process.
>
> However, statements asserting that we did not provide specific information
> force us to set the record straight. I am not giving any new information.
> It's all there -  in the WMDE proposal
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form
> >
> and
> the discussion page:
>
>- Administration costs at the organizational level were differentiated
>as per FDC member request here
><
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Administration_costs
> >
>.
>
>
>- The overhead rate is explained here.
><
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> >
> (scroll
>down below the table)
>
> (The WMDE overhead rate is 28%. '*Rate*' signifies, that each department
> contributes equally to overhead as a percentage of its departmental budget.
> Therefore, the breakdown is also the same across the organization, whether
> its the Software or the Education Department. I don't think there is a more
> transparent way to do this, as this standard method does not allow to hide
> any costs)
>
>
>- Floating capacity is differentiated and explained here
><
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> >.
>(scroll down a few bullets)
>
> WMDE is committed to accountability and transparency and we invest staff,
> systems and financial resources to accieve this. This is reflected in how
> diligently WMDE worked to provide community, FDC members and staff with
> answers to their questions. An informed, fair discussion can and should be
> based upon the data we provided.
>
> Thank you!
> Nikki Zeuner and WMDE's ZEN Team
>
>
> Nikki Zeuner
> Partnerships and Development
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> 
>
> 2015-11-25 4:53 GMT+01:00 Risker :
>
> > Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
> > less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
> > "floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
> > are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
> > movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
> >
> > User:Risker - FDC member
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
> > >
> > > Just a quick correction:
> > >
> > > WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> > > well as other software development costs, down to the activity level,
> in
> > > table 6b, in the financial section
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> > > >
> > > of
> > > the WMDE proposal.
> > >
> > > When first FDC member Risker
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> > > >
> > >  and then FDC staff
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> > > >
> > > asked
> > > about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b,
> and
> > > clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
> > development
> > > work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> > > community activities that support Wikidata).
> > >
> > > Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
> > >
> > >
> > > Nikki Zeuner
> > > Partnerships and Development
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> > > Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> > > US: 1 (520) 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Liam Wyatt]

On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride  wrote:

> I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I
> thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate
> requests, except us." It seems progress has been ebbing and flowing.
>

Just as an extra clarification on this point specifically:
it's not about whether an affiliate is "large" but more about whether they
are eligible[1] and whether they want to apply for an Annual Plan Grant.

There are several affiliate organisations across Wikimedia that have larger
budgets than some of the FDC-applicants, but have never applied for Annual
Plan Grant funding because they have access to external sources of revenue.
For example, the primary sources of income for Wikimedia Poland[2] and
Wikimedia Indonesia[3] are external (national charity-tax rebate scheme;
philanthropic grants).

The role of the WMF itself in making its planning/budgeting accountable to
"the movement" is, as we have seen, contested.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Eligibility
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/2014#Structure_of_income
[3] http://www.wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Laporan_keuangan_2014/Catatan

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.

I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
whole and the FDC would have the time to do.

Thoughts?

Pine
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Michael Peel]

Hoi Gerard,

I'm sorry that they came across to you as weasel words - they weren't meant to 
be, they were meant to be an explanation of how the FDC operates. It wasn't a 
refusal to accept responsibility - the FDC is responsible for its 
recommendations, but the WMF board then decides on whether to approve the 
recommendations or not. That's particularly relevant in the case of 
recommendations related to the WMF, which is what MzMcBride was asking about.

Thanks,
Mike

> On 26 Nov 2015, at 04:33, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in
> translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider
> responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion
> worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to
> accept responsibility.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ  wrote:
> 
>> No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of
>> the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
>> 
>> Perhaps something was lost in translation?
>> 
>> Fae
>> On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hoi,
>>> Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
>>> decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
>>> it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
>>> Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
>>> they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
>>> blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
>>> thinking themselves."
>>> 
>>> Not good, not appreciated.
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>> 
>>> On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>> 
 Hi MZMcBride,
 
> The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
>> and
> there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
>>> the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
 
 They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
>> the
 FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
>> a
 proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
>> recommendations
 about the WMF anyway.
 
> If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
>>> Wikidata,
> does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
>>> know
> how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
>> Wiktionary
 or
> Wikinews or Wikiversity.
 
 It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
>> here
>>> -
 there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
>> the
 Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
>>> It's
 particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
>> and
 in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
 
> The report includes this note:
>> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
>> both
>> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
>> transparency (or lack thereof).
> 
> Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
> power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
 donor
> money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
 admonish
> the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
 
 
 The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
 them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
 withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
>>> Board.
 
 Thanks,
 Mike
 ___
 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,
 
 
>>> ___
>>> 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,
>>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[MZMcBride]

Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>>Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget
>>allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do
>>its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
>
>I hope you realize that the Board has decided to set up the FDC as an
>advisory body :) The FDC is making recommendations to the Board, it is the
>Board that makes the allocations. As of know, the Board has not decided to
>cede the WMF's initial review to the FDC, and it approves the budget by
>itself.

Thank you for this context. It definitely helps better understand the
current situation and why it is the way it is. It would be nice if we
could find a way to link relevant mailing list replies such as this to the
round recommendation subpages. It might just be me, but I feel like the
important background information is difficult for readers to grasp.

I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I
thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate
requests, except us." It seems progress has been ebbing and flowing.

>However, I want to emphasize that even if just for symbolic reasons it is
>important that the WMF serves as a paragon for other organizations in our
>movement.

For sure. It seems perfectly reasonable to maintain the same standards for
yourself that you hold others to. This would likely include guidelines for
disaggregated reporting, I think.

MZMcBride



___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board on the dissemination of
funds.

By adding the extra baggage, you make it a negative. The FDC recommends and
it is responsible for that. The board does not have the bandwidth to do the
work again. It relies on the recommendation and THEREFORE the FDC has an
unenviable job to do.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 26 November 2015 at 16:26, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
wrote:

> Gerard, They don’t look like weasel words to me. How would you try to
> describe the FDC's role more accurately?
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:58 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations
> for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests
>
> Hoi,
> Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
> decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
> it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
> they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
> blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
> thinking themselves."
>
> Not good, not appreciated.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi MZMcBride,
> >
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> > > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
> > > and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal
> > > listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
> >
> > They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
> > the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts
> > requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it
> > necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
> >
> > > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
> > > Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required
> > > to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be
> > > quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation on Wiktionary
> > or
> > > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
> >
> > It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
> > here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects
> > run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education
> > projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to
> > the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
> >
> > > The report includes this note:
> > >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
> > >> both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to
> > >> budget transparency (or lack thereof).
> > >
> > > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct:
> > > what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the
> > > amount of
> > donor
> > > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
> > admonish
> > > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
> >
> >
> > The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
> > them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
> > withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> Board.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > ___
> > 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,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11067 - Release Date: 11/26/15
&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with
the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. Then
there was a significant regression with 2014-2015 both in terms of the
review period and in terms of WMF's responsiveness to questions; some
questions from July 2015 still haven't been answered such as how the 40 new
budgeted FTEs align with the overall annual plan. While the compressed
review time was a big problem, I'm actually more disappointed with the lack
of responses to community questions when there has been plenty of time to
respond to them. The change in tone from the WMF after the most recent
statement from the FDC is welcome, and I hope that we'll see meaningful
improvements in transparency going forward. I appreciate the interest of
the Board, the FDC, and Lila in making improvements.

Pine

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Anna Stillwell 
wrote:

> +1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you
> all for your time, attention and care.
> /a
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked
> on
> > this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see
> > that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent
> > amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
> >
> > Michael Peel wrote:
> > >They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
> > >FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
> > >proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
> recommendations
> > >about the WMF anyway.
> >
> > I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia
> > Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all,
> > then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
> >
> > "For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a
> > complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other
> > entities in the movement."
> >
> > Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the
> > Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a
> > different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does
> > the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct
> > allocation, bypassing the FDC?
> >
> > >It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
> > >- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
> > >the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education
> projects).
> > >It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's
> > >work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
> >
> > Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to
> > answer the question asked. :-)  Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata ::
> > Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected
> > to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the
> > other be as well?
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Stillwell
> Major Gifts Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org *
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with
> the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.


I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of
dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a
significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new
initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by
the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other
organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback
from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able
to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception
of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious
considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to
handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large
organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF
budget in their current rounds schedule?

I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this,
naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact,
we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).

Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
thinking themselves."

Not good, not appreciated.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi MZMcBride,
>
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and
> > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
>
> They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
> FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
> proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations
> about the WMF anyway.
>
> > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata,
> > does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> > costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know
> > how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
> or
> > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
>
> It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here -
> there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the
> Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's
> particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and
> in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
>
> > The report includes this note:
> >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both
> >> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
> >> transparency (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
> > power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
> donor
> > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
> admonish
> > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
>
>
> The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
> them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
> withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Fæ]

No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of
the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.

Perhaps something was lost in translation?

Fae
On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
> decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
> it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
> they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
> blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
> thinking themselves."
>
> Not good, not appreciated.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel  wrote:
>
> > Hi MZMcBride,
> >
> > > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> > > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and
> > > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
> the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
> >
> > They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
> > FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
> > proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations
> > about the WMF anyway.
> >
> > > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
> Wikidata,
> > > does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> > > costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
> know
> > > how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
> > or
> > > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
> >
> > It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
> -
> > there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the
> > Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
> It's
> > particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and
> > in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
> >
> > > The report includes this note:
> > >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both
> > >> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
> > >> transparency (or lack thereof).
> > >
> > > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
> > > power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
> > donor
> > > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
> > admonish
> > > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
> >
> >
> > The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
> > them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
> > withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> Board.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in
translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider
responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion
worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to
accept responsibility.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ  wrote:

> No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of
> the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
>
> Perhaps something was lost in translation?
>
> Fae
> On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
> > decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
> > it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> > Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
> > they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
> > blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
> > thinking themselves."
> >
> > Not good, not appreciated.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi MZMcBride,
> > >
> > > > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> > > > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
> and
> > > > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
> > the
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
> > >
> > > They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
> the
> > > FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
> a
> > > proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
> recommendations
> > > about the WMF anyway.
> > >
> > > > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
> > Wikidata,
> > > > does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> > > > costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
> > know
> > > > how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
> Wiktionary
> > > or
> > > > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
> > >
> > > It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
> here
> > -
> > > there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
> the
> > > Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
> > It's
> > > particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
> and
> > > in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
> > >
> > > > The report includes this note:
> > > >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
> both
> > > >> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
> > > >> transparency (or lack thereof).
> > > >
> > > > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
> > > > power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
> > > donor
> > > > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
> > > admonish
> > > > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
> > >
> > >
> > > The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
> > > them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
> > > withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
> > Board.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Ziko van Dijk]

I can't find something wrong with Pundit's argument based opinions and
explanations.
Kind regards
Ziko

2015-11-26 12:33 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in
> translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider
> responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion
> worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to
> accept responsibility.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of
>> the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
>>
>> Perhaps something was lost in translation?
>>
>> Fae
>> On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>>
>> > Hoi,
>> > Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then
>> > decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does
>> > it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
>> > Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that
>> > they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and
>> > blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not
>> > thinking themselves."
>> >
>> > Not good, not appreciated.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi MZMcBride,
>> > >
>> > > > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
>> > > > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
>> and
>> > > > there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
>> > the
>> > > > Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
>> > >
>> > > They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
>> the
>> > > FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
>> a
>> > > proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
>> recommendations
>> > > about the WMF anyway.
>> > >
>> > > > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
>> > Wikidata,
>> > > > does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
>> > > > costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
>> > know
>> > > > how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
>> Wiktionary
>> > > or
>> > > > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
>> > >
>> > > It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
>> here
>> > -
>> > > there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
>> the
>> > > Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
>> > It's
>> > > particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
>> and
>> > > in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
>> > >
>> > > > The report includes this note:
>> > > >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
>> both
>> > > >> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
>> > > >> transparency (or lack thereof).
>> > > >
>> > > > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
>> > > > power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
>> > > donor
>> > > > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
>> > > admonish
>> > > > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on
>> > > them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it
>> > > withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
>> > Board.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mike
>> > > ___
>> > > 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,
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > ___
>> > 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,
>> > 
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, They don’t look like weasel words to me. How would you try to describe 
the FDC's role more accurately?
Cheers, 
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:58 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 
2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

Hoi,
Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide 
on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, 
or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as 
weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. 
Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as 
saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."

Not good, not appreciated.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> Hi MZMcBride,
>
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific 
> > remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart 
> > and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal 
> > listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
>
> They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to 
> the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts 
> requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it 
> necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
>
> > If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for 
> > Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required 
> > to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be 
> > quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia 
> > Foundation on Wiktionary
> or
> > Wikinews or Wikiversity.
>
> It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' 
> here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects 
> run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education 
> projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to 
> the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
>
> > The report includes this note:
> >> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken 
> >> both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to 
> >> budget transparency (or lack thereof).
> >
> > Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: 
> > what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the 
> > amount of
> donor
> > money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
> admonish
> > the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
>
>
> The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on 
> them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it 
> withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
> ___
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11067 - Release Date: 11/26/15


___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

Dariusz, without speaking on behalf of the FDC, and only my own opinion - I
don't think the question is if the FDC will recommend how much money the
WMF need to get - as the fact that if they will enter the FDC process,
under the SAME requirements as other affiliates (the requirement for a
detailed budget, clear targets and goals, strategy and others) - only the
process himself, without the recommendations, will be much more transparent
and clear to the community then ever. This will allow them to have real
time and enough data to give a REAL feedback, and also to the FDC, as much
as they can. When he has not  specific deadline (like others have), it
turns out that every year he select a different "community process" (if
any..)



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-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 Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with
> > the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
>
>
> I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of
> dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a
> significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new
> initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by
> the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other
> organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback
> from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able
> to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception
> of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious
> considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to
> handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large
> organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF
> budget in their current rounds schedule?
>
> I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this,
> naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact,
> we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Itzik,

the idea that we've been discussing for a while has been introducing a part
of WMF budget ("non-core") into the FDC process. The whole is not viable
for various reasons, but a part - sure.

I also agree that the FDC may be a catalyst of introducing more
transparency, better and SMARTer goals, strategy, etc.

My doubts only refer to the FDC's ability to deal with budgets of this
magnitude - and this caution should be exercised for any organization
within our movement when it reaches certain size (a good question would
e.g. be if WMDE is there yet).

best,

dj


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Dariusz, without speaking on behalf of the FDC, and only my own opinion -
> I don't think the question is if the FDC will recommend how much money the
> WMF need to get - as the fact that if they will enter the FDC process,
> under the SAME requirements as other affiliates (the requirement for a
> detailed budget, clear targets and goals, strategy and others) - only the
> process himself, without the recommendations, will be much more transparent
> and clear to the community then ever. This will allow them to have real
> time and enough data to give a REAL feedback, and also to the FDC, as much
> as they can. When he has not  specific deadline (like others have), it
> turns out that every year he select a different "community process" (if
> any..)
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-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 Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> > For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with
>> > the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
>>
>>
>> I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of
>> dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a
>> significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new
>> initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by
>> the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other
>> organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative
>> feedback
>> from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able
>> to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less
>> perception
>> of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious
>> considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to
>> handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large
>> organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF
>> budget in their current rounds schedule?
>>
>> I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this,
>> naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in
>> fact,
>> we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
>>
>> Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>>
>
>


-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Nicola Zeuner]

Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community
discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of
community funds. That's the beauty of a community reviewed process.

However, statements asserting that we did not provide specific information
force us to set the record straight. I am not giving any new information.
It's all there -  in the WMDE proposal

and
the discussion page:

   - Administration costs at the organizational level were differentiated
   as per FDC member request here
   

   .


   - The overhead rate is explained here.
   

(scroll
   down below the table)

(The WMDE overhead rate is 28%. '*Rate*' signifies, that each department
contributes equally to overhead as a percentage of its departmental budget.
Therefore, the breakdown is also the same across the organization, whether
its the Software or the Education Department. I don't think there is a more
transparent way to do this, as this standard method does not allow to hide
any costs)


   - Floating capacity is differentiated and explained here
   
.
   (scroll down a few bullets)

WMDE is committed to accountability and transparency and we invest staff,
systems and financial resources to accieve this. This is reflected in how
diligently WMDE worked to provide community, FDC members and staff with
answers to their questions. An informed, fair discussion can and should be
based upon the data we provided.

Thank you!
Nikki Zeuner and WMDE's ZEN Team


Nikki Zeuner
Partnerships and Development
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: 0172 547 1261
US: 1 (520) 743-6801
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.


2015-11-25 4:53 GMT+01:00 Risker :

> Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
> less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
> "floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
> are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
> movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
>
> User:Risker - FDC member
>
>
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
> >
> > Just a quick correction:
> >
> > WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> > well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
> > table 6b, in the financial section
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> > >
> > of
> > the WMDE proposal.
> >
> > When first FDC member Risker
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> > >
> >  and then FDC staff
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> > >
> > asked
> > about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
> > clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
> development
> > work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> > community activities that support Wikidata).
> >
> > Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
> >
> >
> > Nikki Zeuner
> > Partnerships and Development
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> > Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> > US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> > www.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> > Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[MZMcBride]

I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on
this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see
that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent
amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.

Michael Peel wrote:
>They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
>FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
>proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations
>about the WMF anyway.

I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia
Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all,
then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:

"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a
complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other
entities in the movement."

Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the
Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a
different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does
the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct
allocation, bypassing the FDC?

>It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
>- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
>the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
>It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's
>work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.

Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to
answer the question asked. :-)  Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata ::
Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected
to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the
other be as well?

MZMcBride



___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the
> Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation?


Somewhat, yes. The process for community consultations and feedback is in
the works, but essentially WMF currently does not undergo the same kind of
application as the affiliates. One of the reasons for this is the size of
WMF: its huge budget makes it a much more time-consuming and
expertise-demanding endeavor to evaluate it, and the FDC is composed of
volunteers (believe me, I chaired the FDC for three terms, and just
handling the two rounds is lots of work). A separate round would make it
easier, and yet it would require three sessions per year, so it would
further decrease the poll of available candidates for the FDC,

Even with WMDE the analysis is really a challenge, and their budget is
significantly smaller than that of WMF - and the quality of feedback and
evaluation from the FDC is of highest importance.  With budgets this size
it is a somewhat different set of skills and experience that is needed than
at the level of organizations with budgets roughly 100 times smaller.




> Or from a
> different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does
> the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct
> allocation, bypassing the FDC?
>

I hope you realize that the Board has decided to set up the FDC as an
advisory body :) The FDC is making recommendations to the Board, it is the
Board that makes the allocations. As of know, the Board has not decided to
cede the WMF's initial review to the FDC, and it approves the budget by
itself.

In my personal opinion (which I often voiced during my tenure at the FDC,
and which I uphold as a Board member now) it would be reasonable, useful
and justified to have some parts of the WMF's budget undergo the FDC
process. The WMF's executive team is also generally supportive of this idea
and it is my understanding, that the conversation on how to make it happen
most effectively is ongoing. We basically need to find a sensible way to do
it, to make the best use of the FDC's, staff's, and the Board's time and
skills, for the optimal outcome.

However, I want to emphasize that even if just for symbolic reasons it is
important that the WMF serves as a paragon for other organizations in our
movement.

TL;DR: I personally would love to make it happen, but I also think it is
imperative to make it right.

Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Anna Stillwell]

+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you
all for your time, attention and care.
/a


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on
> this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see
> that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent
> amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
>
> Michael Peel wrote:
> >They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
> >FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
> >proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations
> >about the WMF anyway.
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia
> Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all,
> then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
>
> "For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a
> complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other
> entities in the movement."
>
> Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the
> Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a
> different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does
> the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct
> allocation, bypassing the FDC?
>
> >It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
> >- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
> >the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
> >It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's
> >work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
>
> Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to
> answer the question asked. :-)  Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata ::
> Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected
> to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the
> other be as well?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Michael Peel]

Hi MZMcBride,

> The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and
> there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?

They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC 
this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal 
to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF 
anyway.

> If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata,
> does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know
> how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or
> Wikinews or Wikiversity.

It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here - 
there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the 
Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's 
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in 
this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.

> The report includes this note:
>> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both
>> strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
>> transparency (or lack thereof).
> 
> Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
> power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of donor
> money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only admonish
> the organization, but not actually withhold funds?


The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The 
FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, 
funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.

Thanks,
Mike
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Chris Keating]

On 25 Nov 2015 03:53, "Risker"  wrote:
>
> Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
> less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
> "floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
> are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
> movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.

I think "WMDE did not attempt to attribute overheads to programme costs" is
a very different statement to "WMDE did not provide details of how much
Wikidata costs".






>
> User:Risker - FDC member
>
>
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
> >
> > Just a quick correction:
> >
> > WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> > well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
> > table 6b, in the financial section
> > <
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> > >
> > of
> > the WMDE proposal.
> >
> > When first FDC member Risker
> > <
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> > >
> >  and then FDC staff
> > <
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> > >
> > asked
> > about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
> > clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
> > work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> > community activities that support Wikidata).
> >
> > Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
> >
> >
> > Nikki Zeuner
> > Partnerships and Development
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> > Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> > US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> > www.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> > Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
> > der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > 
> >
> > 2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> >
> > > Hello Gerard -
> > >
> > > The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
> > > represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> > > increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
> > > it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> > > request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts
by
> > the
> > > FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
> > > committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds
> > provided
> > > are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
> > applied
> > > for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
> > Perhaps
> > > that is where you might want to turn your attention.
> > >
> > > User:Risker - FDC member
> > >
> > > On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
> > > > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
> > we
> > > > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> > > Germany
> > > > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for
inspiration
> > > and I
> > > > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
> > over
> > > > the years.
> > > >
> > > > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > > > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
> > > work
> > > > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not
treated in
> > > > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you FDC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
> > > > That
> > > > > is nice to see.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
> > > problems
> > > > > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
> > > management
> > > > > practices. One would expect the larger 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Andrea Zanni]

Il 25/nov/2015 05:01 "MZMcBride"  ha scritto:

> The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
> remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and
> there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the
> Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
>
> If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata,
> does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
> costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know
> how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or
> Wikinews or Wikiversity.
>
> I think this is a very good question. It would be very useful to know how
much the sister projects cost (in terms of energy, bandwidth). I'll add
that it would be useful to know how many donations come from theirs
banners.

I think I'm not mistaken to assume that there is no other cost involved (as
there is no software development for any of them).
Aubrey


> ___
> 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,
> 
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[rupert THURNER]

Anne, do you imagine to publish income per person that way?
On Nov 25, 2015 04:53, "Risker"  wrote:

> Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
> less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
> "floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
> are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
> movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
>
> User:Risker - FDC member
>
>
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
> >
> > Just a quick correction:
> >
> > WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> > well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
> > table 6b, in the financial section
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> > >
> > of
> > the WMDE proposal.
> >
> > When first FDC member Risker
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> > >
> >  and then FDC staff
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> > >
> > asked
> > about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
> > clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
> development
> > work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> > community activities that support Wikidata).
> >
> > Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
> >
> >
> > Nikki Zeuner
> > Partnerships and Development
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> > Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> > US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> > www.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> > Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > 
> >
> > 2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> >
> > > Hello Gerard -
> > >
> > > The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
> and
> > > represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> > > increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
> everything
> > > it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> > > request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
> > the
> > > FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
> the
> > > committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds
> > provided
> > > are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
> > applied
> > > for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
> > Perhaps
> > > that is where you might want to turn your attention.
> > >
> > > User:Risker - FDC member
> > >
> > > On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
> Wikidata -
> > > > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
> and
> > we
> > > > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> > > Germany
> > > > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
> > > and I
> > > > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
> > over
> > > > the years.
> > > >
> > > > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > > > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
> important
> > > work
> > > > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated
> in
> > > > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
> result.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you FDC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
> round.
> > > > That
> > > > > is nice to see.
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
> > > problems
> > > > > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
> > > management
> > > > > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
> > and
> > > > > robust practices in these areas. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

Not speaking for Anne here, but in general I think all Wikimedia
movement-funded compensation should be published. This is already done in a
number of Wikimedia grant proposals, and I believe that almost all
government agencies in the U.S. are required to provide extensive data
about their use of tax money which includes salaries and pensions for
individual employees. I think this kind of transparency is appropriate.

Pine

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:18 AM, rupert THURNER 
wrote:

> Anne, do you imagine to publish income per person that way?
> On Nov 25, 2015 04:53, "Risker"  wrote:
>
> > Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
> > less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
> > "floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
> > are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
> > movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
> >
> > User:Risker - FDC member
> >
> >
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
> > >
> > > Just a quick correction:
> > >
> > > WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> > > well as other software development costs, down to the activity level,
> in
> > > table 6b, in the financial section
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> > > >
> > > of
> > > the WMDE proposal.
> > >
> > > When first FDC member Risker
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> > > >
> > >  and then FDC staff
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> > > >
> > > asked
> > > about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b,
> and
> > > clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
> > development
> > > work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> > > community activities that support Wikidata).
> > >
> > > Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
> > >
> > >
> > > Nikki Zeuner
> > > Partnerships and Development
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> > > Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> > > US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> > > www.wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> > > Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > > http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> > unter
> > > der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> > > 
> > >
> > > 2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> > >
> > > > Hello Gerard -
> > > >
> > > > The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
> > and
> > > > represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> > > > increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
> > everything
> > > > it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> > > > request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts
> by
> > > the
> > > > FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
> > the
> > > > committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds
> > > provided
> > > > are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
> > > applied
> > > > for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
> > > Perhaps
> > > > that is where you might want to turn your attention.
> > > >
> > > > User:Risker - FDC member
> > > >
> > > > On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
> > Wikidata -
> > > > > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
> > and
> > > we
> > > > > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> > > > Germany
> > > > > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for
> inspiration
> > > > and I
> > > > > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with
> them
> > > over
> > > > > the years.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > > > > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
> > important
> > > > work
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Wil Sinclair]

Actually, as an employee of the WMF, Asaf may be able to contribute
here. Asaf, this is an issue that you feel the organization you that
pays you to help fulfill its mission must address. How are you going
to lead within the WMF to make sure it gets addressed?

Best.
,Wil

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Isarra Yos  wrote:
> On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>>> Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin
>>> to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of
>>> what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
>>>
>> Yes.  I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions.  Talk is cheap.
>>
>> A.
>
>
> Certainly, but asking someone to reword a thing doesn't help with the
> actions either.
>
> ___
> 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,
> 

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Nicola Zeuner]

Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,

Just a quick correction:

WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
table 6b, in the financial section

of
the WMDE proposal.

When first FDC member Risker

 and then FDC staff

asked
about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
community activities that support Wikidata).

Hope this helps to inform this discussion.

Thanks,
Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)


Nikki Zeuner
Partnerships and Development
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: 0172 547 1261
US: 1 (520) 743-6801
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.


2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker :

> Hello Gerard -
>
> The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and
> represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything
> it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by the
> FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the
> committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds provided
> are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE applied
> for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.  Perhaps
> that is where you might want to turn your attention.
>
> User:Risker - FDC member
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
> > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we
> > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> Germany
> > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
> and I
> > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over
> > the years.
> >
> > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
> work
> > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
> > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you FDC.
> > >
> > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
> > That
> > > is nice to see.
> > >
> > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
> problems
> > > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
> management
> > > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> > > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
> concerns
> > > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
> the
> > > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
> > WMF
> > > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
> > >
> > > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
> > >
> > > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
> > that
> > > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> > > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> > > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
> in
> > > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
> their
> > > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
> elsewhere
> > > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> > > understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
> other
> > > funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> > > proposal that the FDC is declining to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Risker]

Thank you, Nikki.  Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
less.  But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
"floating capacity" and "administrative costs".  Those two amounts, which
are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.

User:Risker - FDC member



On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner 
wrote:

> Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
>
> Just a quick correction:
>
> WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
> well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
> table 6b, in the financial section
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan
> >
> of
> the WMDE proposal.
>
> When first FDC member Risker
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker
> >
>  and then FDC staff
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances
> >
> asked
> about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
> clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development
> work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
> community activities that support Wikidata).
>
> Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
>
>
> Nikki Zeuner
> Partnerships and Development
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 260
> Mobil: 0172 547 1261
> US: 1 (520) 743-6801
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> 
>
> 2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker :
>
> > Hello Gerard -
> >
> > The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and
> > represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> > increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything
> > it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> > request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
> the
> > FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the
> > committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds
> provided
> > are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
> applied
> > for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
> Perhaps
> > that is where you might want to turn your attention.
> >
> > User:Risker - FDC member
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
> > > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and
> we
> > > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> > Germany
> > > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
> > and I
> > > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
> over
> > > the years.
> > >
> > > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
> > work
> > > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
> > > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you FDC.
> > > >
> > > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
> > > That
> > > > is nice to see.
> > > >
> > > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
> > problems
> > > > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
> > management
> > > > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
> and
> > > > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
> > concerns
> > > > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
> > the
> > > > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
> that
> > > WMF
> > > > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
> > > >
> > > > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[MZMcBride]

matanya moses wrote:
>tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
>requests have now been published at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/14803740
>
>The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
>make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
>achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We
>met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals
>submitted for this round of funding. [2]
>
>[...]
>
>This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
>thematic organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
>USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a
>new applicant.  This round, one organisation requested a restricted
>grant to support one particular program. All other grant requests were
>for general funding.

Hi.

Apologies if these questions have already been asked/answered elsewhere, I
did try to skim this thread, the Meta-Wiki page, and its talk page first.

The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific
remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and
there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?

If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata,
does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out
costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know
how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.

The report includes this note:
> The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both
>strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget
>transparency (or lack thereof).

Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what
power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?

MZMcBride



___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi Craig,

You are right, this has been an ongoing request for years. This year we did
many infrastructure updates for financial planning. However we missed some
objectives. I take responsibility, specifically for the very short
community feedback window on the annual plan this year. We fixed this in
our upcoming plan. Overall we have improved in some of our core budgeting
and accounting areas, but still have work to do.

This is what we have done this year to set up for financial controls:

+ Implemented KPIs across the organizations.
+ Implemented quarterly goals and reviews across organization.
+ Reduced book close to 15 days.
+ Catalogued projects to set up project-based accounting.
+ Created business cases to evaluate cost/benefit analysis as an evaluation
tool for new projects.
+ Accounting/analytics software updates.

Here is what is upcoming the rest of the fiscal year:

+ 3 year forward revenue/spend forecast.
+ A consultation with community about strategic goals.
+ A 30 day review period for the annual plan.
+ More detailed annual plan, project based accounting where possible.
Impact goals.
+ Gap analysis of the annual plan vs. FDC.
+ Wikidata integration into the annual plan.

Here is what under advisement:

+ 3rd party review of the annual plan.
+ FDC process alignment.

Project based budgeting and 3 year forward projections are going to give us
good understanding of the overall costs of multi-year projects. We will be
able to answer for the total cost of developing Wikidata or new editing
environment. This is a great improvement over what we were able to do
previously and will help us with setting priorities in the future.


Lila




On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Hi Lila,
>
> I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing
> issue for years.  What is required now is not more going around in circles
> with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is
> needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its
> planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up having a
> closer relation to the actual outcomes.  The ball, as they say, is firmly
> in your court.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
>> We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
>> are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
>> has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
>> process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
>> forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
>>
>> Lila
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin <
>> cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
>>> the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
>>> considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
>>> something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to
>>> my
>>> mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless
>>> FDC
>>> that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem
>>> is
>>> receiving continued attention.
>>>
>>> It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in
>>> a
>>> constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying
>>> to
>>> spin them away.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thank you FDC.
>>> >
>>> > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
>>> That
>>> > is nice to see.
>>> >
>>> > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
>>> problems
>>> > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
>>> management
>>> > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
>>> > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
>>> concerns
>>> > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
>>> the
>>> > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
>>> that WMF
>>> > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>>> >
>>> > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>>> >
>>> > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
>>> that
>>> > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
>>> > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
>>> > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
>>> in
>>> > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
>>> their
>>> > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
>>> elsewhere
>>> > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Isarra Yos]

On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote:

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ  wrote:


Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin
to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of
what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.


Yes.  I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions.  Talk is cheap.

A.


Certainly, but asking someone to reword a thing doesn't help with the 
actions either.


___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over
the years.

It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.

Thanks,
 GerardM

On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:

> Thank you FDC.
>
> Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That
> is nice to see.
>
> I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF
> will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>
> A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>
> I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that
> "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>
> I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>
> Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that
> the issues can be resolved soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedians,
> >
> > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests
> > have now been published at:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> >
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
> > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this
> > round of funding. [2]
> >
> > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the
> > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> [3]
> > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these
> > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
> >
> > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic
> > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
> applicant.
> > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one
> > particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
> >
> > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> > reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
> plans,
> > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact,
> > finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
> The
> > committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
> submitted
> > this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
> the
> > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
> >
> > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
> about
> > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
> budget
> > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of
> > this additional recommendation.
> >
> > For your reference, there is a formal process to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Fæ]

On 24 November 2015 at 07:46, Isarra Yos  wrote:
> I had a go at simplifying:
>
>> We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to try to
>> do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at what's
>> happened in previous years in order to see where things fell short then,
>> comparing that to what the FDC standards say should be happening. See also
>> link.

It's a better reading, though it is also true (as Lila stated) that
this has been publicly recognized as an issue for four years, and at
this moment the WMF is "looking" and asking for suggestions rather
than getting on with making obvious improvements immediately, beyond
tweaking the planning schedule.

Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin
to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of
what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Asaf Bartov]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin
> to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of
> what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
>

Yes.  I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions.  Talk is cheap.

   A.
-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Lila,

I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing
issue for years.  What is required now is not more going around in circles
with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is
needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its
planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up having a
closer relation to the actual outcomes.  The ball, as they say, is firmly
in your court.

Cheers,
Craig


On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
> are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
> has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
> process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
> forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin  > wrote:
>
>> I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
>> the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
>> considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
>> something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
>> mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless FDC
>> that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is
>> receiving continued attention.
>>
>> It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a
>> constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying
>> to
>> spin them away.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>>
>> On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you FDC.
>> >
>> > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
>> That
>> > is nice to see.
>> >
>> > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
>> > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
>> > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
>> > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
>> concerns
>> > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
>> > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
>> WMF
>> > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>> >
>> > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>> >
>> > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
>> that
>> > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
>> > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
>> > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
>> in
>> > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
>> > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
>> elsewhere
>> > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
>> > understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
>> > funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
>> > proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
>> > expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>> >
>> > I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
>> > restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
>> > into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
>> > problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>> >
>> > Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
>> that
>> > the issues can be resolved soon.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Pine
>> > On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello Wikimedians,
>> > >
>> > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
>> requests
>> > > have now been published at:
>> > >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
>> > >
>> > > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
>> make
>> > > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
>> the
>> > > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
>> four
>> > > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
>> this
>> > > round of funding. [2]
>> > >
>> > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
>> the
>> > > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> Trustees.
>> > [3]
>> > > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
>> > > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
>> these
>> > > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Risker]

Hello Gerard -

The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the
committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.  Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.

User:Risker - FDC member

On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
> that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we
> have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany
> for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration and I
> have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over
> the years.
>
> It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important work
> is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
> this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
>
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Thank you FDC.
> >
> > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
> That
> > is nice to see.
> >
> > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
> WMF
> > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
> >
> > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
> >
> > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
> that
> > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> > understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> > funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> > proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> > expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
> >
> > I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> > restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> > into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> > problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
> >
> > Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
> that
> > the issues can be resolved soon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
> requests
> > > have now been published at:
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> > >
> > > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
> > > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
> the
> > > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
> > > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
> this
> > > round of funding. [2]
> > >
> > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
> the
> > > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> > [3]
> > > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> > > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
> these
> > > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> > > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
> > >
> > > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
> thematic
> > > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> > > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
> > applicant.
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Lila Tretikov]

We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan

Lila



On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
> the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
> considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
> something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
> mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless FDC
> that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is
> receiving continued attention.
>
> It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a
> constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to
> spin them away.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Thank you FDC.
> >
> > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
> That
> > is nice to see.
> >
> > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> > the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
> WMF
> > will get serious about its financial transpatency.
> >
> > A couple of questions about Wikidata:
> >
> > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
> that
> > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> > understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> > funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> > proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> > expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
> >
> > I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> > restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> > into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> > problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
> >
> > Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
> that
> > the issues can be resolved soon.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> > On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
> requests
> > > have now been published at:
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> > >
> > > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
> > > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
> the
> > > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
> > > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
> this
> > > round of funding. [2]
> > >
> > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
> the
> > > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> > [3]
> > > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> > > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
> these
> > > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> > > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
> > >
> > > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
> thematic
> > > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> > > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
> > applicant.
> > > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
> one
> > > particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
> > >
> > > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> > > reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
> > plans,
> > > strategies) in detail, aided by 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Brandon Harris]

Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this 
answer feels like a "kiss off".


> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> 
> We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
> are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
> has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
> process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
> forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
> 
> Lila
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin 
> wrote:
> 
>> I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
>> the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
>> considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
>> something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
>> mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless FDC
>> that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is
>> receiving continued attention.
>> 
>> It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a
>> constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to
>> spin them away.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Craig
>> 
>> On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you FDC.
>>> 
>>> Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
>> That
>>> is nice to see.
>>> 
>>> I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
>>> the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
>>> practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
>>> robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
>>> about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
>>> FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
>> WMF
>>> will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>>> 
>>> A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>>> 
>>> I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
>> that
>>> "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
>>> disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
>>> place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
>>> this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
>>> other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
>>> in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
>>> understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
>>> funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
>>> proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
>>> expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>>> 
>>> I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
>>> restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
>>> into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
>>> problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>>> 
>>> Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
>> that
>>> the issues can be resolved soon.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
>>> 
 Hello Wikimedians,
 
 tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
>> requests
 have now been published at:
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
 
 The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
 decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
>> the
 Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
 days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
>> this
 round of funding. [2]
 
 The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
>> the
 annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
>>> [3]
 The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
 Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
>> these
 recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
 make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
 
 This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
>> thematic
 organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
 affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
>>> applicant.
 This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
>> one
 particular program. All other grant 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Craig Franklin]

I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless FDC
that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is
receiving continued attention.

It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a
constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to
spin them away.

Cheers,
Craig

On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:

> Thank you FDC.
>
> Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That
> is nice to see.
>
> I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF
> will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>
> A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>
> I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that
> "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>
> I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>
> Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that
> the issues can be resolved soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:
>
> > Hello Wikimedians,
> >
> > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests
> > have now been published at:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
> >
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
> > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
> > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this
> > round of funding. [2]
> >
> > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the
> > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
> [3]
> > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these
> > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
> >
> > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic
> > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
> applicant.
> > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one
> > particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
> >
> > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> > reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
> plans,
> > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact,
> > finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
> The
> > committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
> submitted
> > this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
> the
> > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
> >
> > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
> about
> > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
> budget
> > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of
> > this additional recommendation.
> >
> > For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about
> > these 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Pine W]

Thank you FDC.

Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That
is nice to see.

I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.

A couple of questions about Wikidata:

I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.

I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?

Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that
the issues can be resolved soon.

Thanks,

Pine
On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:

> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests
> have now been published at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
> days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this
> round of funding. [2]
>
> The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the
> annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [3]
> The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
> Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these
> recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
> make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
>
> This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic
> organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
> affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new applicant.
> This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one
> particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
>
> Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets, plans,
> strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact,
> finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals. The
> committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals submitted
> this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data, the
> committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
>
> In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation about
> the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and budget
> detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of
> this additional recommendation.
>
> For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about
> these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes
> for both are outlined below.
>
> Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their
> proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 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. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and
> must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
>
> Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson,
> and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as
> well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and
> investigate as needed.
>
> Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other
> upcoming milestones in the APG 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Risker]

On 23 November 2015 at 21:04, Pine W  wrote:

> Thank you FDC.
>
> Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That
> is nice to see.
>
> I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
> the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
> practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
> robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
> about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
> FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF
> will get serious about its financial transpatency.
>
> A couple of questions about Wikidata:
>
> I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that
> "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
> disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
> place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
> this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
> other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
> in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
> understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
> funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
> proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
> expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
>
> I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
> restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
> into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
> problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
>
> Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that
> the issues can be resolved soon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>


Thank you for your question, Pine.  WMDE did not submit a restricted grant
request for Wikidata. WMDE submitted a restricted grant request for
Wikidata and other software projects, and then said that it was not able to
disaggregate the budgets for each of these two separate projects.  Most
other proposals were able to provide greater detail on the cost of
individual programs within their proposal, despite the fact that they
sought dramatically fewer resources.  As well, the Wikidata project
specifically is working toward a direct funding package with the WMF, and
it will be essential for those costs to be clearly disaggregated in order
for this to happen.  They will not be able to include the costs of other
programs in that agreement, and they will have to be able to more
accurately apportion costs such as rent, administrative overhead, supplies
and services.

In addition, it has sectioned off the majority of its budget from direct
FDC input, stating that it is not seeking Annual Plan Grant (APG) funding
for that portion of its budget.  Nonetheless, that budget is paid for out
of money intended for the growth of the movement.  FDC members were able to
identify several points in that aspect of the WMDE annual plan that appear
to be disproportionately funded compared to similar programs from other
chapters, and the FDC believed that there are plenty of opportunities for
cost saving in the administrative and other areas that would ensure funding
for the planned software development which is intended to provide benefit
to both the local editing community and the Wikimedia movement.

I will note that I am going to post the same response to Marcus Cyron's
comments on the talk page[1], as I believe his comments are in a similar
vein.

User:Risker - FDC member


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1
___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests

[Isarra Yos]

I had a go at simplifying:

> We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to 
try to do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at 
what's happened in previous years in order to see where things fell 
short then, comparing that to what the FDC standards say should be 
happening. See also link.


That's how I read it, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't actually know 
anything about this stuff.


On 24/11/15 04:30, Brandon Harris wrote:

Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this answer feels 
like a "kiss off".



On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan

Lila



On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:


I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF;
the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my
mind not answered in a satisfactory way.  It is good to see a fearless FDC
that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is
receiving continued attention.

It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a
constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to
spin them away.

Cheers,
Craig

On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W  wrote:


Thank you FDC.

Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.

That

is nice to see.

I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems
the FDC  seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that

WMF

will get serious about its financial transpatency.

A couple of questions about Wikidata:

I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says

that

"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.

I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be
problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?

Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope

that

the issues can be resolved soon.

Thanks,

Pine
On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses"  wrote:


Hello Wikimedians,

tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant

requests

have now been published at:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve

the

Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for

this

round of funding. [2]

The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on

the

annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

[3]

The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of

these

recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.

This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one

thematic

organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new

applicant.

This round, one