Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

hello, below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate in the FDC process. A little background: In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013 budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither by the FDC nor by WMF. In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014 should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF budget for 2014-2015. After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position regarding WMF participation in FDC process. best, Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit") ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM Subject: WMF in FDC process To: Sue Gardner &lt;sgardner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; Dear Sue, I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing to specific areas, when appropriate). The advantages of the approach are numerous: - It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated, - It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested in, - It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more decision power and influence, - It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in an organized review if the WMF budget. The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically for the FDC process). We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them. best, on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit") _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>