Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi, Deryck. Thank you. Apology accepted. I look forward to working with WMHK on a suitable plan for development (even right now, though I'm guessing WMHK has its hands full till after Wikimania). Cheers, Asaf On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote: Hello everyone again. Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate. I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words foul play may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter. Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers. Deryck On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: Dear trusty Wikimedians, The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal. At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into mainstream charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia. My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected. And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration? Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times. Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Dear Deryck, many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will not die out completely. One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your personal capacity, but representing the chapter (it would be logical if only the organizations, which are dissatisfied with the results related to them, could complain). The deadline is also quite short, 7 days from the day the recommendations were published. best, dariusz On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: Hello everyone again. Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate. I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words foul play may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter. Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers. Deryck On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: Dear trusty Wikimedians, The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal. At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into mainstream charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia. My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected. And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration? Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? I think this exact point is often overlooked. I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thing. I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the content of Wikipedia, and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the sitenotice for fundraising. As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users. The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM entity was then to ask permission to them. The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia. So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice or neither of us. Aubrey ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
hi Erlend, I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns, in my view, and I would like to address them. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote: However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, another is the under-utilization of critical resources. In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have different resources and abilities than the large ones. In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3 categories of applicants: * a) the small chapters in incubation phase (typically below 100,000 USD), b) medium sized mature chapters, c) large organizations (above 1.000,000 USD). We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative growth may be perceived as valuable on its own. * The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the USA or in national language markets overseas. For any global organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than in the rest of the world combined? Among seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is American. best, Dariusz (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hey Deryck, On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: But you say we … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance… From my reply to THO (also on this thread): We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania. Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating we want, that is not that same as together with the grant giver we agreed… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two… (and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC pointed out). Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf (or scroll halfway down the proposal page) Thanks! Jan-Bart ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the big bureaucratic body of the WMF for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment. But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step. I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-) Charles Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org a écrit : Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating we want, that is not that same as together with the grant giver we agreed… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two… People don't instantly agree on everything. There is always something the WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an agreement between WMF and WMHK. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
2013/4/30 Charles Andres charles.andres.w...@gmail.com: In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment. But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step. I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-) Hi Charles! That would be really helpful. I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be addressed with this change in the process. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.html for more details. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the big bureaucratic body of the WMF for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... In the past years, we have seen
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread! Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/ studies?) And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more meaningful. As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time. we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are will And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some basis for a future growth. WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest years (correct me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters, probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and that can be helpful to imagine what you can do. *Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina 2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan jerry.tschan...@gmail.com I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/ studies?) And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more meaningful. As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time. we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are will And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
hi Jeromy-Yu, thank you for sharing this personal note. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, etc.). I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded separately). best, dariusz (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit : I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread! Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement. And boy... is that sad :( Flo Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement. And boy... is that sad :( Flo Agreed, and I'll say it: to Yaroslav and everyone else who slaves away to make Wikimania work... thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Florence Devouard wrote: I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members). Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy number of Wikimedia chapters. In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees. The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions: WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 Erik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus. From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The key word is coordinating. we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved. Anders Secretary of FDC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong shows WMHK to still be an eligible entity. Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago? --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of the FDC. I would read three main important weaknesses: a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be reduced a lot b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to solve conflicts. It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about peer review and people speaking about a single model of chapter. Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European chapters. Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a peer review evaluating it with European parameters! Regards On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote: MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus. From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The key word is coordinating. we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved. Anders Secretary of FDC ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi David, I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread. Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff and FDC members in their comments do. Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations Yes, we're still missing some steps Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created, a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get funds and so made a proposal. But the FDC is not the normal way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a regular basis. This is not a light process. I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals, fostering Wikimedia community. And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team, we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of the allocation. But we have And that change in perspective, from start-up to company always comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even leaving, you see employees leaving too. I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years ago and left last December. That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful one, but a needed one I believe. Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little reporting? I do not. Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended). I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process the FDC is. As I said in my previous email: * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used with a formal process * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests Best, -- Christophe On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi Christophe, From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 To: dger...@gmail.com CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone As I said in my previous email: * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used with a formal process Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times. * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests I'm sorry I don't understand that you need a specific GAC process... Do you mind rephrasing? Thanks,Abbas. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment. And culture context is central for most of us and it is fascinating the broad understanding of cultural context, country specifics and specific chapters operations there exist among the group of us Anders Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-04-29 10:07: Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of the FDC. I would read three main important weaknesses: a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be reduced a lot b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to solve conflicts. It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about peer review and people speaking about a single model of chapter. Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European chapters. Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a peer review evaluating it with European parameters! Regards On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote: MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus. From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The key word is coordinating. we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Christophe, From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 To: dger...@gmail.com CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone As I said in my previous email: * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used with a formal process Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times. Not all, and many only for project grants not for operations grants (like part time accounting). This is a flaw of how the process is perceive I think. * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests I'm sorry I don't understand that you need a specific GAC process... Do you mind rephrasing? Thanks,Abbas. GAC is not able to provide grant for a full time employee right now. The only way to get funds for that first employee is through the FDC. Which, as I said earlier, is a really heavy process. That being said, GAC can already provide funds for external contractors on specific tasks, like accounting. Is my rephrasing better? :s -- Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52: [...] At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...] Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry that you invested so much energy in serving as guinea pig for the FDC process, and I sympathise with your decision: as volunteers, we must focus on what lets us achieve more. It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. On the bright side, experienced and valuable movement members like you and WMHK can always find a way to use their intelligence and have an impact within Wikimedia, despite external obstacles, *if* you don't rely on a blocker/bottleneck outside your wiki/project/chapter/group (it's the wiki way). Applying to FDC proved a mistake but now you and your fellow chapter members can support each other in reassessing priorities and finding a new motivation. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more. Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was it discovered they were not? When the FDC recommendations were published. (see my reply to THO) Obviously, putting together an FDC application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this could have been better spent on useful programme work instead. Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will change everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity. Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago? --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution. Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an algorithm but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project. These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the project. This has generated anyway a wasting of time. Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently. regards On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.plwrote: Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw, there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than in the FDC). -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently. And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of funds came in. (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF actively chose to ignore it.) - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC. Actually the information how GAC works is IMHO much more clear that for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact. Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is for sure not a solution for professionalisation. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Table -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Deryck, it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and contributions are very valuable to the movement. It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help to have a process to up- or downgrade a funding proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's still a fallback option. Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are willing to help with such an assessment? Best, Markus -- Markus Glaser WCA Council Member (WMDE) Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn. Agreed, I am not on Internal either… Jan-Bart [1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process Tom -- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote: P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn. Agreed, I am not on Internal either... Jan-Bart Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!) -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!) It's pretty much inactive and closing it has been proposed. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hello Everyone I was an observer on the first round of the FDC, Patricio was the observer of the recent round of FDC requests so he will probably be able to tell you more on the specific details. But in general I have been (and still am) extremely impressed with the level of scrutiny AND the flexibility of the FDC members. I was witness to several spirited discussions and saw a group of thoughtful people doing what they were good at: reviewing proposals for large grants. But as I understand there were several issues with the proposal, please do not pick on one issue. We had a community review period which also resulted in some serious questions (some without answers). And the FDC feedback gave several reasons. I would have seriously disappointed if $200K+ was granted. I do think that we need to provide a way to support an organisation after the FDC process… and we have in several cases in the past. David: I do not agree with you. you are blaming the WMF for the fact that the FDC is doing a good job in reviewing funding proposals. The Centralisation of payment processing has little to do with this. In fact, most chapters that do not payment process since the change (and there were not that many to begin with) are happy with the new process (and a lot of other chapters go through Grants process, which they would have done anyway regardless of the change to an FDC which exists alongside). I argue that the FDC is the best thing that has happened to our movement and combined with an improved process and chapter peer review we are going to get even better. I would love to hear how you would have handled this particular FDC request. Jan-Bart On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania. Winifred informed us of the out of compliance well after the grant report was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. There was no indication whatsoever that this late notice of out of compliance may lead to retrospective disqualification. Deryck (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.) On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused funds - did WMHK request a reallocation? Sent from my iPhone --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters. On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this could have been better spent on useful programme work instead. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity. Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago? --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hey So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I would like to ask you something. Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will change everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us. But you say we … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance… Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it? And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a significant amount of time discussing this... Jan-Bart Cheers, Craig Franklin On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity. Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago? --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi Markus, I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better… And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review amongst themselves, I think its great and heard enthusiasm for the idea in Milan Jan-Bart On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Markus Glaser markus.gla...@wikimedia.de wrote: Deryck, it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and contributions are very valuable to the movement. It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help to have a process to up- or downgrade a funding proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's still a fallback option. Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are willing to help with such an assessment? Best, Markus -- Markus Glaser WCA Council Member (WMDE) Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I hope a few remarks are valid. As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH. The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations and other funds. Legislation and general ethics call for a thorough application process. However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, another is the under-utilization of critical resources. The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the USA or in national language markets overseas. For any global organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than in the rest of the world combined? One major problem then, is that countries attracting millions of dollars in donations, have insufficient organisational resources to make full use of that local enthusiasm. We must not forget how few volunteers really are, and how valuable their energy is to the projects rather than applied in planning and book-keeping. What it the WMF tried to post some foundation resources more evenly between regions and time zones, to assist chapters and community processes more directly in the region. Serving Eastern Europe or the Middle East time zones from San Fransisco is next to impossible, for obvious reasons. Assistance presently restricts itselves to reporting, planning and spread-sheet scrutiny, as apart from a more directly supportive approach. To just illustrate the point, we have existed for five years as a chapter in Norway, supporting a high project production, but with a modest population. Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic states are in more or less the same situation. During the three years I have served at the chapter board, I have never heard of any initiative from the WMF staff to neither visit, meet, inspect, or support directly the projects and activities that are taking place locally. There are no regular or even sporadic support visits, campaign or outreach efforts from WMF in the region. Valuable but complicated campaign initiatives that often require substantial administrative effort, are totally left to the efforts of volunteers, with an increasing gap towards the growing resources in the other and of the organisational chain. Translate this press brief, and try to get on local tv. One result will be an even more unevenly distributed outreach and campaigning power between some professionalised hubs (Germany, India, UK, Switzerland, Israel), and totally amateur hubs (Hong Kong, Egypt, Japan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, etc). Normally, organisational resources would be dispersed to reach out to the most promising markets (for example, chinese or arabic language communities) and adjust for local market failure in reaching that goal. Instead, WMF resources are presently dispersed to the chapters and communities that coincidently did fundraising before a certain date, or reach through with their FDC submissions. Among them are hardly any arab-speaking or chinese-speaking chapters, representing the two billion people of those immensely large cultures. This is in no way an effort to deny the hard work, entrepreneurship and creativity of successful chapters. The problem lies not in London and Berlin, but in Cairo and Lahore. Countries with hundreds of millions of inhabitants are devoid of even the slightest organizational resource to mobilize. This is too important to leave to an application process. The WMF will eventually have to disperse resources more directly to overseas, regional centras covering important time-zones. The WCA initiative and the failure of WMHK to establish an outreach hub for its 1,3 billion strong language-community, should be a powerful wake-up-call to start parting up some of the resource at least for occasional focused efforts. India was a good start. Personally, it took the grants and funding processes to realizehow critical this is. For many amateur chapters, the reporting regime inherent in such processes is simply too much. In stead of draining lcal organizational resources towards San Fransisco (by way of applications), turn the table and start distributing some headquarter resources directly outwards, to the chapters. I am probably mistaken in much of the above,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny from the FDC or GAC. It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and judiciously granting funds. In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals; China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that parallels its activity and volunteer engagement. It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it. In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most. Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself, not to another large organization with its own duties. To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized administrative staff, I would choose the former. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send funds away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That is disastreous. To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there. Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task for the WMF. Kind regards, Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO 2013/4/30 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it. In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most. Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself, not to another large organization with its own duties. To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized administrative staff, I would choose the former. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote: Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send funds away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That is disastreous. To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there. Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task for the WMF. Kind regards, Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note: as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like anywhere else. -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote: To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there. India, anyone? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are you all posted there? ;-) Erlend, WMNO 2013/4/30 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote: Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send funds away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That is disastreous. To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there. Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task for the WMF. Kind regards, Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note: as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like anywhere else. -- phoebe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you are to our movement and you have my sincere respect. I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise, and take a moment for doubt and serious review. Fae (mobile) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions: WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 Erik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them. That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic that future generations figure this out On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them. That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Erik Moeller wrote: As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions: [...] Thanks for the links. I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is unclear to me. MZMcBride [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here. As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high. What we would need: 1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...) 2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds 3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :) We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of responsability. Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement. Best Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -Original Message- From: Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
