I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away. Cheers, Craig On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you FDC. > > Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That > is nice to see. > > I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems > the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management > practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and > robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns > about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the > FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF > will get serious about its financial transpatency. > > A couple of questions about Wikidata: > > I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that > "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to > disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another > place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in > this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their > other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere > in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is > understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other > funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this > proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This > expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction. > > I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for > restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated > into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be > problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this? > > Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that > the issues can be resolved soon. > > Thanks, > > Pine > On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" <mata...@foss.co.il> wrote: > > > Hello Wikimedians, > > > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests > > have now been published at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1 > > > > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make > > decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the > > Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four > > days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this > > round of funding. [2] > > > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the > > annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. > [3] > > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de > > Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these > > recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then > > make their decision on them before 1 January 2016. > > > > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic > > organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten > > affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new > applicant. > > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one > > particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding. > > > > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully > > reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets, > plans, > > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact, > > finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals. > The > > committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals > submitted > > this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data, > the > > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations. > > > > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation > about > > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and > budget > > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of > > this additional recommendation. > > > > For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about > > these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes > > for both are outlined below. > > > > Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their > > proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in > > accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A > formal > > appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a > > 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] > and > > must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant. > > > > Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the > Ombudsperson, > > and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as > > well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and > > investigate as needed. > > > > Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other > > upcoming milestones in the APG program. > > > > Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who submitted > > annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round. > > > > On behalf of the FDC, > > > > Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya > > > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG > > [2] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1 > > [3] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round1 > > [4] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recommendations_of_the_FDC > > [5] > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process > > [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately > > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia > > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > _______________________________________________ > > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
