i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
rupert. On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevre...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hey Lodewijk, > > So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the > situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent and > lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and YOU > feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is true. > A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do always manage > to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one detail does not > affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has decided to give a > headlines recommendation because they felt that this was the right level of > detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can indicate if they feel that > they have enough information. You are free to indicate that as well, but > please don't present it as the general opinion. > > And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer you > to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot of > time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common decision > was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be discussed (and > assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this time is better > spend making the deliberations rather than working on detailed reporting). A > specific chapter will know the details of their application (as will you when > you visit their proposal and talk pages) and can hopefully move forward with > the comments received. Its not the FDC's job to make all details of an > application and their opinion available to you in a nice summary document > because you don't want to read the plans… The decisions do NOT stand on their > own and are part of the FDC portal, which provides more transparency than you > have ever seen in any funds distribution of this size anywhere in the world I > would guess. > > And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a > funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major factors, > and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, but there > are never "10s" of factors... > > The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they > don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL give > during this round. > > Jan-Bart > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz, >> >> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret >> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee >> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget >> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that. >> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the >> applicant?), state so. Etc. >> >> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have >> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be >> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC. >> >> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC >> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're >> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members >> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for >> the next round. >> >> Kind regards, >> Lodewijk >> >> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> >> >>> hi Lodewijk, >>> >>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the >>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one >>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the >>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified >>> either by extraordinary circumstances or by the early stage of >>> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which >>> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial >>> reserves, etc. >>> >>> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that >>> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed >>> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When >>> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in >>> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month). >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dj >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk >>> <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Dariusz, >>>> >>>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was >>>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to >>>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally >>>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information >>>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is >>>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could >>>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an >>>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you >>>> didn't trust them with the money etc). >>>> >>>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was >>>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find >>>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which >>>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to >>>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth >>>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in >>>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more >>>> applications. >>>> >>>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate >>>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such >>>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the >>>> arguments are so shallow. >>>> >>>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to >>>> the cases. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Lodewijk >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> >>>> >>>>> hi Lodewijk, >>>>> >>>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final >>>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning >>>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great >>>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and >>>>> methodology. >>>>> >>>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they >>>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum >>>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been >>>>> deducted >>>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC >>>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the >>>>> organization incorporated). >>>>> >>>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, >>>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what >>>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and >>>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in >>>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget >>>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a >>>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the >>>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can >>>>> grow more harmoniously. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> dariusz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk >>>>> <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some >>>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every >>>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Lodewijk >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevre...@wikimedia.org> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Everyone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post >>>>>>> created earlier today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those >>>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. >>>>>>> As >>>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we >>>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my >>>>>>> expectations >>>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jan-Bart >>>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> >>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >>>>>>>> To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to >>>>>>> announce >>>>>>>> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >>>>>>> 2012-13. >>>>>>>> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these >>>>>>> recommendations by >>>>>>>> December 15, 2012. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were >>>>>>> from 11 >>>>>>>> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were >>>>>>>> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC >>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>> that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals >>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and >>>>>>> FDC >>>>>>>> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these >>>>>>> proposals >>>>>>>> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement >>>>>>> goals. >>>>>>>> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in >>>>>>> San >>>>>>>> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members >>>>>>> discussed >>>>>>>> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each >>>>>>> applying >>>>>>>> entity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the >>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what >>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to >>>>>>> provide >>>>>>>> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these >>>>>>>> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process >>>>>>> on-wiki >>>>>>>> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it >>>>>>> in our >>>>>>>> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >>>>>>>> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the >>>>>>> complaint >>>>>>>> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial >>>>>>> Operation of >>>>>>>> the FDC [4]: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word >>>>>>> summary >>>>>>>> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC >>>>>>>> (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >>>>>>>> - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC >>>>>>> portal page >>>>>>>> designated for this purpose [5] >>>>>>>> - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF >>>>>>>> Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >>>>>>>> - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a >>>>>>>> funding-seeking entity. >>>>>>>> - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the >>>>>>> submission of >>>>>>>> the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day >>>>>>> UTC >>>>>>>> November 22) >>>>>>>> - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >>>>>>>> - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an >>>>>>>> amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in >>>>>>>> extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release >>>>>>> extra >>>>>>>> funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not >>>>>>> allocated by >>>>>>>> the FDC's initial recommendation. >>>>>>>> - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the >>>>>>> investigation if >>>>>>>> approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> on behalf of the FDC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [5] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> __________________________ >>>>>>>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>>>>>>> profesor zarządzania >>>>>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>>>>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>>>>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>>>>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>>>>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>>> Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>>>>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> __________________________ >>>>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>>>> profesor zarządzania >>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> __________________________ >>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>> profesor zarządzania >>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: 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
