Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Nick Dowling  wrote:
> While Sue's concerns about the overheads involved with some of the Wikimedia
> chapters seem well-founded, there would also be some pretty obvious problems
> with the WMF attempting to fund individuals around the world directly. A
> well run local chapter seems better placed to sort the wheat from the chaff
> when assessing country/region-specific proposals, and that might be a good
> angle to emphasise as part of WMAU funding applications - the chapter has a
> pretty good record in funding projects that result in additional content
> being added to Wikipedia and Commons (and other sites), and it's overheads
> are very low compared to some of the other chapters. The Committee might
> also want to highlight the kind of proposals it doesn't approve to
> demonstrate the advantages of local knowledge.
>
> As an aside, from having watched the video, it's notable that the WMF's
> grants team comprises 10 people. This is a large team to administer $US8
> million in funding, most of which is apparently being provided to a small
> number of chapters with whom the WMF has long standing relationships and
> reporting arrangements - the overheads for the team alone would be in the
> order of $US1-$2 million. While it obviously costs money to assess and
> administer grants effectively (and this kind of work can be very
> labour-intensive when done correctly), this is relatively generous staffing
> compared to what NGOs or public service agencies would allocate to a program
> of this scale and type. If the WMF wants to allocate less money to chapters
> and more to individuals they're facing 1some major internal costs...

I agree that $1 million would be way too high as standard operating
overhead.  However they are reporting that FDC overhead is only USD
538,000, and roughly half of that is a once-off program startup
expense.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Annual_report_on_the_Funds_Dissemination_Committee_process_2012-2013#Highlights_in_numbers_from_the_first_year

"US$537,911 was spent on support and overhead costs as follows:
US$175,835 on personnel, US$65,424 on face-to-face deliberations
(travel, venue, accommodation), US$2,466 on operating expenses, and
US$294,186 on one-time expenses covering The Bridgespan Group's
consultancy fees during the creation of the FDC process."

It would be nice to see what that US$175,000 on personnel includes, as
there are a lot of related expenses that may not have been included.

The WMF currently has nine staff in the team according to

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff#Grantmaking

There is a breakdown of which staff are involved in which programs here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grantmaking_and_Programs#Grantmaking

It looks like Katy Love (started in January 2013), Adele Vrana
(started in October 2012) and Anasuya Sengupta (started in July 2012)
are the main staff working on FDC, with Winifred Olliff split between
many programs so she is probably only dedicated to the FDC process
during the periods of high workload.

A quick check of my emails shows that other people who have worked on
he FDC includes: Jessie Wild, Christine Bocknek, Garfield Byrd, Barry
Newstead, Heather Walls, Tilman Bayer, Melanie Brown & Asaf Bartov.
And of course Sue has spent a lot of time on this, and Erik has
chipped in occasionally.

There is also the FDC ombudsmen election.  Incorporating the FDC
ombudsmen into the board election cause quite a bit of unplanned
trouble, as the software was only intended to run one election at a
time.

Then there is the costs of chapter staff, and the many volunteer hours
thrown into it.

There is also the time that WMF spent on their application and
management of the FDC grant to WMF, which could be excluded from 'the
cost of FDC' with some interesting definitions.

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations

[Nick Dowling]

While Sue's concerns about the overheads involved with some of the Wikimedia 
chapters seem well-founded, there would also be some pretty obvious problems 
with the WMF attempting to fund individuals around the world directly. A well 
run local chapter seems better placed to sort the wheat from the chaff when 
assessing country/region-specific proposals, and that might be a good angle to 
emphasise as part of WMAU funding applications - the chapter has a pretty good 
record in funding projects that result in additional content being added to 
Wikipedia and Commons (and other sites), and it's overheads are very low 
compared to some of the other chapters. The Committee might also want to 
highlight the kind of proposals it doesn't approve to demonstrate the 
advantages of local knowledge. 
As an aside, from having watched the video, it's notable that the WMF's grants 
team comprises 10 people. This is a large team to administer $US8 million in 
funding, most of which is apparently being provided to a small number of 
chapters with whom the WMF has long standing relationships and reporting 
arrangements - the overheads for the team alone would be in the order of 
$US1-$2 million. While it obviously costs money to assess and administer grants 
effectively (and this kind of work can be very labour-intensive when done 
correctly), this is relatively generous staffing compared to what NGOs or 
public service agencies would allocate to a program of this scale and type. If 
the WMF wants to allocate less money to chapters and more to individuals 
they're facing some major internal costs... 
Nick
From: kerry.raym...@gmail.com
To: memb...@wikimedia.org.au; wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 12:26:01 +1000
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds
Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations

















Further to this, I happened to be watching
to the WMF Metrics Meeting, which also reveals some interesting information on
the grants process.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKD5eGFNkI
with the relevant section commencing at 34 mins 20 secs.

 

Kerry

 









From:
Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 6:21
AM

To: 'memb...@wikimedia.org.au';
'Wikimedia Australia Chapter'

Subject: FW: [Chapters] Fwd:
[Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year
of operations



 

 









From:
Chapters [mailto:chapters-boun...@wikimedia.ch] On Behalf Of Itzik Edri

Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 5:49
AM

To: Chapters mailing list

Subject: [Chapters] Fwd:
[Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of
operations



 



Hey,



 





I don't know how many of you had the time already to read Sue's report.





 





I'll give some Chapters Executive Highlights:





 





·   
Upshot:
I am pleased by the first year of the FDC. That said, I also want to note that
I have significant
concerns about how our movement entities are
developing. 

·   
 

·   
Disproportionate resources and influence of Wikimedia
organizations: I believe that
currently, too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the
chapters. The value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by
individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in
those readers donating money to the movement. We have over 40 Wikimedia
organizations today, 12 of whom received funding allocations through the FDC 
last
year. Of the US$5.65 million WMF gave out in grants last year, 89% or US$5.04
million were to affiliate entities, with US$4.71 million (83% of the total
grants) to these 12 entities for their annual plans. I am not sure that the
additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the
financial cost, and I wonder whether it might make more sense for the movement
to focus a larger amount of spending on direct financial support for
individuals working in the projects.

·   
 

·   
High costs and unclear results: [...] I believe we're spending a lot of money, 
more than is
warranted by the results we've been seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates
requested by the entities submitting funding requests to the FDC: I believe
that in order to justify the size of grants that have been sought, the entities
involved should need to be able to say clearly how their plan will make an
important contribution to helping the Wikimedia movement achieve its mission.

·   
 

·   
Growing institutionalization of the movement: During the WMF strategic planning 
process, at the beginning of
2010, there were only three chapters with staff.
By the end of the first year of the FDC process, there are at least 15
Wikimedia affilia

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations

[Kerry Raymond]

Further to this, I happened to be watching to the WMF Metrics Meeting, which
also reveals some interesting information on the grants process.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKKD5eGFNkI with the relevant section
commencing at 34 mins 20 secs.

 

Kerry

 

  _  

From: Kerry Raymond [mailto:kerry.raym...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 6:21 AM
To: 'memb...@wikimedia.org.au'; 'Wikimedia Australia Chapter'
Subject: FW: [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination
Committee: Report on first year of operations

 

 

  _  

From: Chapters [mailto:chapters-boun...@wikimedia.ch] On Behalf Of Itzik
Edri
Sent: Friday, 4 October 2013 5:49 AM
To: Chapters mailing list
Subject: [Chapters] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination
Committee: Report on first year of operations

 

Hey,

 

I don't know how many of you had the time already to read Sue's report.

 

I'll give some Chapters Executive Highlights:

 

*Upshot: I am pleased by the first year of the FDC. That
said, I also want to note that I have significant concerns about how our
movement entities are developing. 

* 

*Disproportionate resources and influence of Wikimedia
organizations: I believe that currently, too large a proportion of the
movement's money is being spent by the chapters. The value in the Wikimedia
projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the
value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the
movement. We have over 40 Wikimedia organizations today, 12 of whom received
funding allocations through the FDC last year. Of the US$5.65 million WMF
gave out in grants last year, 89% or US$5.04 million were to affiliate
entities, with US$4.71 million (83% of the total grants) to these 12
entities for their annual plans. I am not sure that the additional value
created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost,
and I wonder whether it might make more sense for the movement to focus a
larger amount of spending on direct financial support for individuals
working in the projects.

* 

*High costs and unclear results: [...] I believe we're
spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been
seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates requested by the entities
submitting funding requests to the FDC: I believe that in order to justify
the size of grants that have been sought, the entities involved should need
to be able to say clearly how their plan will make an important contribution
to helping the Wikimedia movement achieve its mission.

* 

*Growing institutionalization of the movement: During
the WMF strategic planning process, at the beginning of 2010, there were
only three

chapters with staff. By the end of the first year of the FDC process, there
are at least 15 Wikimedia affiliates with full or part-time staff and
offices (not all of them in the FDC process). [..]

* 

*FDC process dominated by chapters perspectives: I am
also concerned that the FDC itself --the most significant and powerful
funding mechanism for our movement-- has very few non-chapter-related
members: the majority of its members are also Board/former Board members of
a chapter. [...]. But I do also believe that people who are involved in
chapter organizations (and other Wikimedia organizations) have a particular
worldview that is in some ways different from that of Wikimedians who choose
not to become involved with incorporated Wikimedia organizations, and I
think a healthy funds dissemination process would benefit from multiple
perspectives. 

 

 

Itzik

 

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sue Gardner 
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on
first year of operations
To: Wikimedia Announce Mailing List


Hi folks,

As you know, in July 2012 the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked
me to set up the Funds Dissemination Committee, a volunteer-driven advisory
committee created to make recommendations to the Board allocating funds for
chapters and other Wikimedia movement entities. I did that, and the FDC has
now been fully operational for a little more than a year.

As part of the FDC framework, I committed that after the FDC's first year of
operation I would create a report for the Board that documented the state of
the FDC at that moment in time, and told the Board about any revisions we
had made to the process as a result of stakeholder input during its first
year.

The purpose of this note is to tell you that report is now posted. It's
here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Annual_report_on_the_Funds_Dissem
ination_Committee_process_2012-2013

If you've got comments on the report I'd suggest t