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 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".
> I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
> >
> > 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.
> I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but
> I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the
> other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are
> not isolated, but they are not the same either.
> And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do
> think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and
> reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place
> for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply
> to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any
> funding is being in compliance.

Last time I've checked, GAC explicitly disallow proposals for full-time
permanent staffing and administrative costs, stating that FDC is the only
place we can get funding for that.

Having project funding alone wouldn't help - it is precisely because the
grants team disallows the use of project grants for administrative purposes
that WMHK ended up in its current awkward situation.
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to