2015-05-28 11:42 GMT+02:00 Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com>: > The WMF talks about "eating your own dog food"[2] in terms of engineering, > but it would be good if something similar would take place in the annual > planning too... Chapters are required to submit their annual plans to a two > *month* period of quite thorough public review before the FDC gives its > recommendations, and then there's a further period before the actual > decision/appeals.[3]
[...] This. in particular: > It would be good if the WMF would *try to set a good example* by following > the rules that it sets for others, itself. And also a little addition (from [1]): «The FDC would like to encourage the WMF to share more data in advance, and to do so publicly as much as possible. It was very difficult to evaluate this proposal when some data were made available on short notice. Also, the budget submitted to the FDC is not a final one, and the FDC has to comment on a working version of a proposal. As a result, the FDC has to work on a proposal with a significant growth in administration and hiring, although it is also immediately clear that the suggested numbers were theoretical maximums, not meant to be met. For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement. The Board may need to adjust the calendar of FDC work, but allowing for a comprehensive review by a committee from the community (such as the FDC) rather than the Wikimedia Foundation itself is essential, especially in light of the minimal feedback from the community on the public pages. [...] The FDC is worried that the WMF has not followed the FDC’s recommendations from the previous round (2012–2013 Round 1), and that the WMF has excused itself from proposing an amount in the current round. The WMF should either clearly withdraw from the FDC process or undergo it on equal basis with other organizations in the movement. In particular, the WMF should apply for an amount, and should submit a full final proposal. The calendar for the FDC process may need to be adjusted to accommodate the WMF, but these requirements are important for the process. Allowing a thorough review of the WMF proposals by a community-driven body is especially important, since a lot of staffing and budget increases are not clearly and directly linked with the strategic priorities. The WMF has high competencies in governance and in running a large organization, and should be significantly more proactive in disseminating its knowledge and supporting chapters and thematic organizations through training, onboarding plans, and fostering cross-chapter exchange. [...] Some FDC members object to the fact that the FDC is not being asked to provide a dollar amount for the WMF proposal, as this is a distinct difference from how the FDC assesses the other organizations that apply to it. They would like to see the WMF apply with a dollar amount next year, and to run its annual planning process on a similar timescale to that expected from other organizations participating in the FDC process.» As it was already said above. I, personally, do think that we can discuss about making some adjustments to the process to make it work for an organisation of the size of the WMF, but I also would like to see the WMF play along the rule of everybody else in the movement (again, considering all the special need and characteristics of this). Cristian [1] source: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round2#Wikimedia_Foundation_.28WMF.29> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
