Thanks a lot for the replies, Anasuya and Jessie. It will be interesting to see the evolution and impact of WMF grantmaking in the months and years ahead.
Pine
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 15:43:15 -0700
> From: Anasuya Sengupta <asengupta(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2
> decisions
> Message-ID:
> <CAKK0PRxtmW8tyq=O_bCyCA696H8ObvCtgBTm==4wFpOeTH3rLw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi Pine,
>
> My apologies for the tardiness of this reply; I've been away in India with
> family and am only just back.
>
> It's an important question to ask, because the Grantmaking team's programs
> - including the FDC process - have and are being set up with a strong
> self-evaluation component. We exist to support our movement through grants
> and shared knowledge as key resources, and we can only do this well if
> we're good at listening and learning ourselves.
>
> Overall, we're looking at multiple feedback mechanisms (including surveys
> and discussion groups at conferences like WMConf, Wikimania). As an
> example, we did a survey of the FDC Round 1 process which we shared in
> Milan, and used as a way to get more face-to-face feedback. This helps us
> know both broad and specific areas that we need to improve on and to do so
> quickly and appropriately. One thing to keep in mind with grantmaking
> programs is that process feedback is easily and quickly incorporated (like
> wiki-tables that made life miserable for FDC Round 1 applicants and we
> could improve for Round 2 applicants). However, substantive feedback (like
> the nature of questions, or entirely new sections of inquiry) need to be
> incorporated at the end of the year for the new year, so that the nature of
> the proposal doesn't change dramatically over the year, or from one round
> to the next: it's not fair on either the new folks applying, or the
> committee reviewing the proposals. We intend to do surveys of all our major
> grantmaking programs over the next few months, so that we have a good
> baseline against which to measure our progress as a team.
>
> Again, it's useful to remember that our proposal processes might seem
> 'heavy' to many in the movement, but they're pretty light-weight (with the
> possible exception of wiki-tables) in comparison to other grantmaking
> processes that are far more demanding for far smaller grant amounts. As a
> comparison, in the human rights and social justice grantmaking world, most
> grants are in the range of 5,000-50,000 USD.
>
> For the FDC in particular, the FDC Advisory Group will assess the first
> year, and towards the end of the second year (March 2014), give the Board a
> recommendation on whether the mechanism works (or not) and should continue
> (or not). The FDC Ombudsperson also gives an annual report which is
> independent and autonomous on the FDC process.[1] With these various
> inputs, the staff and FDC will create a report for Year 1 which we hope
> will be shared back with the community at Wikimania.
>
> Other forms of external or independent assessments will also be part of our
> process: Kevin Gorman's retrospective of the grants program so far, for
> instance, was really useful and we've already incorporated several of his
> recommendations.[2] With the Program Evaluation team, we're also going to
> get much better at sharing the good and best practices that already exist
> in the movement, and at pointing out work that's relevant from other
> movements.
>
> Finally, we're planning some internal and external research to better
> provide guidance to grant applicants on issues like potential growth
> trajectories and useful ways of thinking about moving from entirely
> volunteer to staffed groups. We're obviously not working on this in
> isolation - there has already been some good thinking within the movement
> on this - and we'd be glad to be in conversation with anyone who wants to
> work with us on these issues.
>
> The Grantmaking team is a work in progress - we didn't exist in our present
> form last year, we've essentially restructured and reconfigured ourselves
> over the past few months, set up the FDC and IEG processes, and learnt
> rapidly about what works (and what might not) - and we're always open to
> feedback. If people are uncertain about who to reach out to, please do get
> in touch with me: as the person who heads the Grantmaking team, (some
> element of) the buck does stop with me. :-)
>
> thanks,
> Anasuya
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_…
> [2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Retrospective_2009-2012
>
>
The cooperation between Wikimedia Norway and the National Antequarian of
Norway (Riksantikvaren), is taken a great step further by the latter
employing two wikipedians-in-residence at this vital cultural institution.
The National Antequarian is in charge of cultural heritage and historic
heritage site preservation in Norway, and manages a base of c. 100.000
cultural and historic heritage sites in Norway and Svalbard.
The cooperation started three years ago as the Wiki Loves Residence contest
in Norway got full access to the cultural heritage site database, leading
to suck cool apps like the WLM contest map:
http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wlm/norway/index.php?place=no-20
Now, in cooperation with WMNO, the public entity submits for two
Wikipedians-in-residence, one focusing on textual and media conetnt, the
other focusing on technical development and WLM:
http://www.riksantikvaren.no/filestore/Wiki-in_residence.pdf
This will add to the two W-i-R's already installed in Norway, at museums.
The project specifically points to the Swedish "Riksantikvarieembetet"
project with W-i-R's.
The news were revealed on national radio this week:
http://www.nrk.no/kultur-og-underholdning/1.11009548
The co-operation with the National Antequarian has it's own project site
here:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Underprosjekter/Kulturminner
WIkimedia Norge recently applied the WMF (FDC) for resources to support and
facilitate this and other co-operations with GLAM institutions. Eventhough
the Staff assessment was partly negative, we are going forward at full
speed with GLAM co-operations, including W-i-R projects.
This means that FDC funds (if the board approves) might allow for a minimum
staff backing, while the W-i-R's will be able to run the necessary
development on the ground and maybe assist marketing of the WLM project in
Norway this year - in co-operation with WMNO.
Kind regards
--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
Asaf,
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
This situation is complicated. I think it should be reviewed by an uninvolved third party, probably the FDC ombudsperson. I think it would take significant time and a lot of emails in this thread to accomplish what a review by the ombudsperson could accomplish in a faster and more thorough manner.
Would you or someone else from the Grants staff please address the more broader questions that I raised earlier? I realize that these may have been easily overlooked due to the high volume of email on this list recently, so I'll repeat here.
"Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the value of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with regards to chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first full time employee. There have also been comments made regarding the "heavy" nature of the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff please indicate whether a review of these concerns is under consideration, if so, how they plan to conduct the review?"
I think you partially addressed these questions in your response but I would appreciate a more direct reply from you, Anasuya, Jessie, or anyone else in the Grantmaking and Programs group. Please feel free to fork into a separate thread if you like.
Thanks,
Pine
Forwarding per request.
Alex
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sarah Stierch <sstierch(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 2013/5/8
Subject: Please send this to the list, thanks: Subject: Program Evaluation
and Design Workshop - Apply to attend! - June 22-23, Budapest
To: wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[please pardon this crossposting]
Hello everyone!
I am pleased to announce the first Program Evaluation and Design Workshop!
- *When*: 22–23 June 2012
- *Where*: Budapest, Hungary
The application process is now open. We have only 20 slots available for
this workshop and the application deadline ends on May 17th. This two-day
event will be followed by a pre-conference workshop at Wikimania 2013.
Ideally, applicants would commit to attending both events.
*Why are we offering this workshop?* Over the next couple of years, the
Wikimedia Foundation will be building capacity among program leaders around
evaluation and program design. A better understanding of how to increase
impact through better planning, execution and evaluation of programs &
activities will help us to move a step closer to achieving our mission of
offering a free, high quality encyclopedia to our readers around the world.
*What will take place at this and the following workshops?* Our long-term
goals are:
1. Participants gain a basic shared understanding of program evaluation
2. Participants will work collaboratively to map and prioritize
measurable outcomes, beginning with a focus on the most common program &
activities
3. Participants will gain increased fluency in common language of
evaluation (i.e. goals versus objectives, inputs & outputs versus outcomes
& impact)
4. Participants will learn and practice how to extract and report data
using the UserMetrics API
5. Participants will commit to working as a community of evaluation
leaders who will implement evaluation strategies in their programmatic
activities and report back at the pre-conference workshop at Wikimania 2013
6. …and participants will have a lot of fun and enjoy networking with
other program leaders!
We will publish a detailed agenda for the event in Budapest soon on meta.
*Which programs & activities are we going to focus on?* During the workshop
in Budapest, we will only have a limited amount of time. Therefore, we will
be focusing on the some of the more common programs & activities:
- *Wikipedia editing workshops* where participants learn how to or
actively edit (i.e. edit-a-thon, wikiparty, hands-on Wikipedia workshop)
- *Content donations* through partnerships with GLAMs & related
organizations
- *Wiki Takes/Expeditions* where volunteers participate in day/weekend
events to photograph site specific content
- *Wiki Loves Monuments* which takes place in September
- *Education program/classroom editing* where volunteers support
educators who have students editing Wikipedia in the classroom
- *Writing competitions* which generally take place online in the form
of contests, WikiCup, and challenges – often engaging experienced editors
to improve content.
*Who should apply?* Community members who play an *active role* in
planning and executing programs & activities as described above in the
Wikimedia community. Your experience and knowledge will make this workshop
a success!
*What about the costs for travel and accommodation?* Hotels, flights and
other transportation costs will be on your chapter; the Wikimedia
Foundation will provide the venue, handouts, breakfasts and light lunches,
and a dinner for all participants on Saturday. If you're not affiliated
with a chapter and cannot afford to attend the event, please send me a
private email – we have a small amount of money set aside for those cases.
Applications are open until May 17. You can apply via this Google
Form<https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/forms/d/11yCoOls5ae8FqAXIdp9Tua76il…>
.
Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to a great group of
participants!
-Sarah
--
*Sarah Stierch**
Wikimedia Foundation Program Evaluation & Design Community Coordinator
*Donate<http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Donate/en&utm_source=&utm_…>today
and keep it free!
Visit me on Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>!
Yesterday, OpenStreetMap launched iD, an in-browser editor so that you can edit the map.
You no longer need to download JOSM, the desktop application, or use Potlatch, a Flash-based application.
When you start using iD, it gives you an introductory guide on how to edit. The app is designed to let newbies start editing very quickly and easily, without having to go and read documentation or a load of other cruft.
It's an amazing bit of open source work and has the potential for making it dramatically easier for new users to jump in and make their first edit, and then get utterly addicted.
There's a site about it here:
http://ideditor.com/
Blog post about it from the official OSM blog:
http://blog.openstreetmap.org/2013/05/07/openstreetmap-launches-all-new-eas…
My off-the-cuff reactions:
http://tommorris.org/posts/8264 ;)
Now the Foundation just need to do the same for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects with VisualEditor, right...?
--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>
Hi Everyone,
As today is the day that Ting's resignation from the Board of Trustees becomes effective I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for the tremendous contribution he has made to the board over the past five years. I did not know Ting when he joined our board but from what I heard we were lucky that the community elected him. And that certainly proved to be the case. In my opinion a board functions best when there are many divergent opinions at the table who are able to discuss matters in a sensible and constructive way in order to come to creative solutions. Ting certainly contributed his uniqueness to that mix over the past five years, and I am grateful that he was able to make as much time available as he did in order to remain on the board for such a long time. Apart from being a really really nice person Ting has a lot of wisdom (something which he will probably deny ;)
As some of you might know I ran against Ting for the Chair position of the Board of Trustees in 2010 and lost. At that time I thought that I was definitely the better candidate but the following two years proved me wrong. I was happy to serve as his vice chair during the second year. His diligent way of going about things made sure that a lot of things got done during his tenure as chair and also ensured that all the voices at the table got heard. Ting was always willing to go and visit a local chapter or a Wikimedia event in order to represent the board and Foundation. His unwavering principles and spirited way of discussing topics about which he is passionate (of which there are several) are an inspiration. At the same time he was more than willing to listen to all the different viewpoints and able to change his mind if others presented valid arguments (something which sounds simple but with which a lot of people, including myself, have difficulty with ;) During several different discussions Ting managed to convince me of the fact that his viewpoint was the correct one, and I will miss his input in the future.
As is tradition Ting will attend the next Wikimania (Hong Kong here we come!) and we will take that opportunity to formally thank him for his efforts for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I hope you will all join me in this :)
Thank you Ting! I am not sure how or when, but I hope that our paths will cross again in the coming years!
Jan-Bart de Vreede
Vice Chair Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation
Hi folks,
It’s my great pleasure to announce that today, Jared Zimmerman will
start as Wikimedia Foundation’s Director of User Experience. As UX
Director, Jared will lead the design team and have a hands-on role on
the team, contributing his own design work. It’s still a small team
(Brandon, Vibha, May, and Pau), but we expect to hire an additional
3-4 designers in the coming 12-18 months.
Prior to Wikimedia, Jared was Principal Interaction Designer at
Autodesk, where he worked with engineers, visual artists, and user
experience researchers to create new software solutions for
architecture and design professionals with an emphasis on AutoCAD for
Mac and soon to be released online design collaboration tools. Jared
has led cross-disciplinary design teams in his roles at Autodesk,
Ammunition Group, and iconmobile, including creative direction.
At Autodesk, he was part of the transition to agile development and
helped his design teams apply those principles to their work. During
his time there he worked with design management to establish designers
as product owners in the scrum process, to further integrate them into
the development process from start to finish, as well as teaching his
team best practices for use of agile design tools.
Jared has degrees in Graphic Design (BGD) and Fine Art Photography
(BFA) from the Rhode Island School of Design. His photography has been
in featured in publications such as Travel + Leisure Magazine,
ZonaRetiro, and Huffington Post.
In addition to starting in his new job, Jared is also planning his
wedding in July to his fiancée Shannon. [1] In his spare time Jared is
wrapping up a remodel to their home, working on his first iPhone app,
experimental cooking, photographing the bay area & abroad [2], and
answering questions on Quora. [3]
I look forward to Jared’s leadership in helping elevate a delightful,
consistent and efficient User Experience to becoming a key measure of
success for our work.
Please join me in welcoming Jared! :-)
Erik
[1] http://shannonbadiee.com/
[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/spoinknet/
[3] https://www.quora.com/Jared-Zimmerman/answers
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
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
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
In the light of some of the discussion about overhead and fundraising cost
ratios on this list, I would like to congratulate the Arrythmia Alliance, a
UK registered charity, for two remarkable feats revealed in its annual
return to the Charity Commission:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/Charity…
* Raising £800K GBP without spending anything at all on fundraising, a
totally unbeatable fundraising ROI of infinity
* Incurring only £10,000 in overheads on their total expenditure of £1.24M
GBP
These figures are literally unbelievably good, and I hope we see nothing
similar in the Wikimedia movement in the future.
Chris
Dear all,
the Ombudsman Commission has started a request for comments on Meta about
its scope:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scope_of_Ombudsman_Comm…
We invite everyone to comment on this proposal (preferably on the page
linked above in order to have all discussions at one place).
For the OC,
Thogo.