Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this
answer feels like a "kiss off".
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and
> are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
> has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
> process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
> forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
>
> Lila
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
---
Brandon Harris :: bhar...@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
_______________________________________________
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>
