Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,

Just a quick correction:

WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
table 6b, in the financial section
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan>
of
the WMDE proposal.

When first FDC member Risker
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker>
 and then FDC staff
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances>
asked
about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
community activities that support Wikidata).

Hope this helps to inform this discussion.

Thanks,
Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)


Nikki Zeuner
Partnerships and Development
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: 0172 547 1261
US: 1 (520) 743-6801
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
<http://wikimedia.de>

2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker <risker...@gmail.com>:

> Hello Gerard -
>
> The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and
> represents a 42% increase from last year's grant.  This is a massive
> increase.  Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything
> it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded.  Remember, the
> request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by the
> FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the
> committee was not provided with this information.  While the funds provided
> are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE applied
> for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.  Perhaps
> that is where you might want to turn your attention.
>
> User:Risker - FDC member
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
> > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we
> > have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
> Germany
> > for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
> and I
> > have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over
> > the years.
> >
> > It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
> work
> > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
> > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, 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
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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>

Reply via email to