Hi Mathieu,
I think that WMF has used a tool like this in the past for an office hour with Sue. For this research office hour, I believe that two researchers and I agreed on this time, and then J-Mo recruited additional WMF participants. So there's more than one way to go about scheduling an office hour. If there's significant interest, such as with Sue's office hours, then it's possible to have multiple office hours scheduled at different times about the same subject. If there's a lot of interest in this research office hour then we can schedule additional sessions, perhaps on a recurring basis, if the WMF staff agree to that.
Pine
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:37:43 +0200
> From: Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>
> To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour with WMF researchers
> Message-ID: <f44ce9f2ff76c0c6dca5c5438a971933(a)culture-libre.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Le 2013-04-17 21:11, ENWP Pine a écrit :
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We'll meet on IRC in #wikimedia-office on April 22 at 1800 UTC.
> > Please join us.
>
> I won't be able to join, but I wish I was able to do so. Did you use a
> shedule software such as [1] to organize this event? If not, please
> consider using one in the future.
>
> [1] http://framadate.org/index.php?lang=en_GB Note that this website is
> powered by a free software, so Wikimedia may install its own instance if
> needed.
>
> Kind regards,
> mathieu
>
> --
> Association Culture-Libre
> http://www.culture-libre.org/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
Forwarding a reply from a non member of the list.
Alex
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: rexx <rexx(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
To: Wikimedia Chapters general discussions - closed list <
chapters(a)wikimedia.ch>
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:04:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [Chapters] Question: How do we define lobbying?
I was aware that in the USA non-profits can lobby, but there are limits on
how much they can spend on it. The most restricted type of non-profit is a
503(c) and such an organisation may choose to spend up to 20% of their
first $500,000 of annual expenditure on lobbying - the maximum any 503(c)
may spend on lobbying in a year is $1,000,000.
I assume that the WMF would need some mechanism to ensure that the grants
it makes do not become used for lobbying in such a way that the total
exceeds the $1M total - which would jeopardise their tax-free status. It is
therefore perfectly understandable that WMF may decide that the easiest way
to be certain is to bar the use of granted funds for lobbying completely.
If we wanted to move away from that, each grantee would probably need a
more complex accounting system to be able to reassure the WMF that spending
on lobying was strictly limited. I'm not suggesting such a system would be
impossible, only that it would require some negotiation between Chapters
and WMF.
Some quick Google results for background reading:
http://www.clpi.org/the-law/faqhttp://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2009-03-04/mehta.shtmlhttp://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202
Cheers
--
Doug Taylor
On 19 April 2013 16:37, Fae <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In a workshop in the Milan conference, there was a break-out
> discussion led by Iolanda (WMIT) on lobbying. There is a lot of
> interest in finding ways of supporting change in copyright legislation
> and open knowledge access in as many countries as possible.
>
> One of the interesting features of the WMF agreement when providing
> funds under the FDC process is that this money should not be used for
> lobbying. During the coffee break I had a quick chat with Garfield
> (the WMF CFO) about a possible clarification. My understanding from
> that chat was that if there were valid reasons for lobbying in support
> of our cause, this should be a separate grant for traceability
> reasons, it is not intended to imply a blanket ban, but traceability
> is needed to satisfy the IRS. If a chapter has separate income from
> the WMF, then there is no concern as this is a matter for the
> individual chapter board and membership to worry about.
>
> I think this is a useful clarification, and this ought to be followed
> up as an action from our workshop.
>
> I would welcome any comments from the wider community on what sorts of
> lobbying as a movement that we definitely want to support, encourage
> and possibly provide funds for, and if we could come to a clearer
> definition of what lobbying is (such as political protest) and things
> we do as a community that is not quite lobbying, even though it may
> relate to government legislation (such as publishing a white paper
> with our summary of the benefits of changes in copyright law).
>
> Cheers,
> Fae
> --
> faewik(a)gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
> Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
> _______________________________________________
> Chapters mailing list
> Chapters(a)wikimedia.ch
> https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/chapters
>
In a workshop in the Milan conference, there was a break-out
discussion led by Iolanda (WMIT) on lobbying. There is a lot of
interest in finding ways of supporting change in copyright legislation
and open knowledge access in as many countries as possible.
One of the interesting features of the WMF agreement when providing
funds under the FDC process is that this money should not be used for
lobbying. During the coffee break I had a quick chat with Garfield
(the WMF CFO) about a possible clarification. My understanding from
that chat was that if there were valid reasons for lobbying in support
of our cause, this should be a separate grant for traceability
reasons, it is not intended to imply a blanket ban, but traceability
is needed to satisfy the IRS. If a chapter has separate income from
the WMF, then there is no concern as this is a matter for the
individual chapter board and membership to worry about.
I think this is a useful clarification, and this ought to be followed
up as an action from our workshop.
I would welcome any comments from the wider community on what sorts of
lobbying as a movement that we definitely want to support, encourage
and possibly provide funds for, and if we could come to a clearer
definition of what lobbying is (such as political protest) and things
we do as a community that is not quite lobbying, even though it may
relate to government legislation (such as publishing a white paper
with our summary of the benefits of changes in copyright law).
Cheers,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
What: Translation User Interface bug triage
Date: April 24 2013
Time: 1700-1800 UTC, 1000-1100 PDT (Timezone conversion: http://hexm.de/r0)
Channel: #mediawiki-i18n (Freenode)
Etherpad: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/BugTriage-i18n-2013-04
Questions can be sent to: runa at wikimedia dot org
Hello,
The Language Engineering team would like to invite everyone for the
upcoming bug triage session on Wednesday, April 24 2013 at 1700 UTC
(1000 PDT). During this 1 hour session we will be using the etherpad
listed above to collaborate. We have already listed some bugs, but
please feel free to add more bugs, comments and any other related
issues that you’d like to see addressed during the session. You can
send questions directly to me on email or IRC (nick: arrbee). Please
see above for event details.
Thank you.
regards
Runa
--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
After seeing a few recent facts and figures about Wikimedia Chapters
(at the Milan conference), I think that "administration" versus
"project" activities is highly varied and may be something like 15% to
40% out of the overall budget. Unfortunately this figure can be a bit
hard to work out and (I think) almost impossible to ensure we would be
comparing like for like based on current reports.
It would make a great top level key performance indicator for our
organizations if this could be reported using an agreed standard
definition as to what administration means, with such a definition we
could even make this an expectation for the public annual financial
reports. Hopefully reporting such a ratio could then be a target for
improvement and any strategic plans for growth could be accountable
against this and other top level performance measures.
My rule of thumb would be that "administration" is composed of:
* Staff salaries, contractor payments and professional advice fees
* Offices and fixed or hired assets used for non-project activity
(such as financial reporting, accounts, board meetings)
* Expenses for non-project activity
I have yet to have a confirmed figure for WMUK, but I would be
interested any any current figures for other chapters for
comparison/benchmarking and any explanation of the 'norms' we might
expect to calculate these.
Cheers,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
Hi there,
sitting in Milan myself, personally I do agree it would be helpful to have good benchmarks, for various reasons.
I share your belief we need to gather standardized data for that and this will not be quite easy.
One certain problem will be expenses covered by offices. That can be anything, from unavoidable expenses (obligatory reporting, bookkeeping etc. under a local law), all the nice-to-haves (coffees, business trips etc.), up to hidden costs of fundraising, outreach or content creation (e.g.: mail costs will include: obligatory reporting mail, mass fundraising mail, up to etc. books and materials sent for authors, coaches teaching how to edit etc. etc.).
Similar things can be said about salaries/working hours of contractors etc.
Thus, it will be pretty difficult to not compare apples and oranges. And if we start demanding highly detailed reporting, it can get both pretty tiring and arbitrary.
Having written that, gathering data with details like yearly office rental fee and staff expenses and trying to estimate how much goes for: content creation, recruitment, keeping excitement in the community, fundraising, external co-ops etc. is a good starting point.
However, to be really successful we would need to require chapters to conduct strict accounting,
addressing particular expenses to proper endavours.
One possible solution helping with that has been just shown by Manuel Schneider. WMCH uses a CRM system,
urging to match every expense with a proper project. Using this bookkeeping enhancement could greatly improve clarity of the books, help in keeping discipline, simplify auditing as well as reporting, e.g. for these benchmarks.
So far, pursued data is (quite chaotically) put into reports submitted by chapters. I guess it is a right thing to start with, improving together the framework and asking chapters to share data and give their input. I hope we find balance between flexibility and bureaucratic requirements. :) Isn't it as big challange the WCA researchers want to cope with? :) A different story are the differences among countries. I guess we should benchmark with some local NGOs as well.
Best Regards,
Michał "Aegis Maelstrom" Buczyński
I am wondering why there is no "tweet this page" capability through the
WMF sites? It is so widely available through the web, and here is a range
of sites that would be a prime place to do it, and NADA, no capacity.
Even if we had it for something like https://blog.wikimedia.org/ would be
a good place to start. Howwever, the ability to easily tweet about a book
at Wikisource, an article at one of the WPs all sound like marvellous
things to easily do.
Regards, Billinghurst
Dear friends and colleagues,
We want to share with you information about the Letter of Intent process
and the FDC schedule for next year (July 2013 - June 2014). As you may
remember, the *Letter of Intent (LoI)* is the first step towards applying
for funds from the FDC, as discussed in the FDC framework [1]. This was not
part of the first year's process, but is meant to be an integral part of
the FDC calendar from this next round (Round 1, 2013-14) onwards. *The
Letter of Intent asks all entities who intend to apply for Round 1 (or
Round 2) to formally state their intention to do so.* In addition, the LoI
now asks applying entities to include a notional dollar figure (or local
currency figure) in the Letter of Intent. Applying entities will be able to
update this amount in their final FDC proposals. The updated Letter of
Intent template will be available on the FDC portal [2] by May 1, but the
sample is here for reference [3].
With the Letter of Intent, the FDC staff can support applying entities in
their proposal process well before the deadline for proposals. We hope this
will remove some of the challenges faced by applicants in the first year of
the FDC process. The FDC can also plan better with a clear understanding of
who intends to apply, and an estimation of the funds requested.
The FDC framework originally stated that the deadlines for the LoI were
June 1 for Round 1 and November 1 for Round 2. However, we are pushing back
the deadline *by one week*, since the community review period was also
extended by two weeks. *The LOI deadline will now be June 8 for Round 1,
and November 8 for Round 2. *
For your reference, here is the updated 2013-2014 Round 1 proposal process
schedule:
- *Letter of Intent deadline for Round 1: 8 June 2013*
- Deadline for WMF Staff to post eligibility: 15 July 2013
- Deadline for entities to meet eligibility requirements: 15 September
2013
- Proposal submission deadline: 1 October 2013
- Community review period: 1 October - 31 October 2013
- Staff assessment deadline: 8 November 2013
- FDC recommendation due: 1 December 2013
- Board decision due: 1 January 2014
The schedule for the 2013-14 Round 2 proposal process:
- *Letter of Intent deadline for Round 1: 8 November 2013*
- Deadline for WMF Staff to post eligibility: 15 December 2013
- Deadline for entities to meet eligibility requirements: 15 February
2014
- Proposal submission deadline: 1 March 2014
- Community review period: 1 March - 31 March 2014
- Staff assessment deadline: 8 April 2014
- FDC recommendation due: 1 May 2014
- Board decision due: 1 June 2014
It is our hope that the Letter of Intent process will help in planning for
both the entities and the FDC, and ensure that the FDC and FDC staff are
supporting the applying entities significantly ahead of the proposal
deadlines.
As always, do not hesitate to let us or the FDC support staff (
FDCsupport(a)wikimedia.org) know if you have any questions or concerns about
this important process.
Warm regards,
Patricio and Jan-Bart
(Board representatives to the FDC)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_…
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Sample_letter_of_intent
--
Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
A notification to the broader community of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I have recently posted a request for comment at meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Activity_levels_of_adv…
The purpose of the discussion is to determine a model guideline for use of
all Wikimedia Foundation public wikis to determine minimum expected
activity of advanced administrative rights holders, and a process to remove
rights where there has been an exceptional duration of inactivity.
Your questions and comments are most welcome.
Regards, Billinghurst
(WMF Steward)