The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. 
On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014
recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been
posted on Meta :
The WMF Board will make their decision on these recommendations by 1 July
For the second round of this fiscal year, the committee received four
proposals.  These four proposals came from two chapters, WMF and one
non-Wikimedia organization, totaling requests of '''$1.56''' million USD.
Prior to our face-to-face deliberations in Frankfurt from 21st-24th May,
the FDC reviewed the proposals in careful detail, aided by staff
assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and
history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an
overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and
FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal
form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and
prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions
about the proposals.
The committee thanks all organizations that submitted proposals, as it
required significant effort to both create the proposal and to respond to
the questions and feedback from the community, FDC, and FDC staff. We
sincerely appreciate them all for this work.
For formal complaints or appeals about the recommendations, there is a
separate process that entities should follow. Note that at the request of
many stakeholders, we are clarifying the complaints and appeals terminology
so that complaints are made about the process to the ombudsperson and
appeals on the recommendations are made to the WMF Board representatives.
These are further explained below:
Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s Round 2
recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
'''end of day UTC 8 June 2014''' in accordance with the appeal process
outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows:
Appeals to the WMF Board on the recommendations of the FDC (formerly called
complaints, terminology changed to avoid further confusion):
* A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF
Board representatives to the FDC (Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta).
* The appeal should be submitted on-wiki through the FDC portal page
designated for this purpose. 
* Formal appeals can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
* Formal appeals must be filed within seven days of the deadline for
submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board, even if
the recommendations are published before the deadline for the
recommendations i.e. end-of-day '''1 June 2014'''. The deadline for appeals
is the end-of-day UTC on '''8 June 2014'''.
* These board representatives will present the appeal to the WMF Board at
the same time as the Board considers the FDC recommendation. Responses to
an appeal will be made alongside the overall decision on the FDC
recommendations, i.e. by end-of-day UTC '''1 July 2014'''.
* Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing an
appeal will be put on hold until the appeal is resolved.
* If the WMF Board's consideration of the appeal results in an amendment of
the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary
circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the
WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial
* The Ombudsperson, as well as members of the WMF Board other than the
Board representatives, may participate in the investigation if approved by
the Chair of the WMF Board.
Complaints to the ombudsperson about the FDC process (formerly called
* A complaint about the FDC process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson and can be made any time during a particular round of the FDC
process (e.g. in this instance, from start '''1 April 2014''').
* The complaint should be submitted on wiki, through the FDC portal page
designated for this purpose 
* The ombudsperson will receive and publicly document the complaint, and
investigate the complaint, as needed.
On behalf of the FDC,
"pundit" Dariusz Jemielniak (FDC Chair)
[[Category:2013-2014 Round 2]]
Is the following a full statement of Wikipedia's Child Protection
Policy, reflecting all responsibilities that the Wikipedia community
and the Wikimedia Foundation have taken on to protect children in all
of the projects they are involved with and/or sponsor?
Are there any other *published* policies of WP or the WMF pertaining
to child protection that I might have missed?
I know that this is a very politically charged issue in the WP
community. I'd appreciate a high light:heat ratio if anyone has
comments beyond links to current policy statements.
I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of her in public. (:
However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's jobs more complicated. I am assuming good faith that you are well-intentioned, but I am worried, not so much for your sake but for the community's, Lila's, and WMF's.
I would like to show you some options for places where the style of conversation you are using would be a better fit, where you can ask questions and have discussions, and which are less politically sensitive than this list is. Of course you are welcome on this list if you have cross-wiki suggestions or can't get questions answered elsewhere, and I respect your right to free speech, but I would ask you to consider these suggestions.
On English Wikipedia, you will find friendly and helpful people at our Teahouse.  For questions and realtime help you can also visit #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC.
If you want to get to know Wikipedians, I suggest that you join local volunteer meetups such Wiknic if there is one in your area. In those circumstances most people are happy to socialize.  If you are able to attend WikiConference USA in New York, I think you would enjoy it. 
If you want to have electronic conversations that are more chatty and less formal than the discussions on this list, I suggest IRC. #wikipedia-en is a high profile channel and many of the questions that you asked here could be discussed in there. And as I said above, for realtime help you can visit #wikipedia-en-help. However, I ask as a personal favor that you don't have conversations in #wikimedia-office which is the main WMF channel. I can't stop you from talking there any more than I can take away your free speech rights, but I think any communications in there from you would create more complications.
I feel it's ok for you or any Wikipedian in good standing to talk on WO if they want, but engaging in semi-official diplomacy is a very different matter, if that's what you're doing (I haven't checked your edits and I don't want to). There may come a time when you have the community's trust and can act in
high-profile ways with the support of the community, but at the moment the discussion on this email list tells me that your actions are creating complications to the start of Lila's tenure in ways that have me worried. To use an analogy, imagine Michelle Obama saying in public that her personal opinion is that Barack Obama should have diplomatic talks with <insert hostile country here> or revoke <insert executive order here>, or that she personally has been conducting outreach to <insert hostile country here> without going through the State Department. That would create complications for Barack Obama and lots of other people, even though Michelle has a right to communicate her views.
I am available to answer questions if you have any for me. You can ask on my Meta talk page, on my English Wikipedia talk page, through email, or set up a time to meet me on IRC or Skype. I'm sure other participants in this discussion would also be willing to talk with you in places other than this list.
If I have misunderstood your position please correct me. I appreciate your interest in Wikipedia and I hope you will be a net positive to the community. (:
Just joined this list and not sure my 1st message got through
This is to let everybody know that the
Fund Dissemination Committee Advisory Group
aka the FDC AG
will be meeting Sunday thru Monday
The purpose is to review the set up and operations of the
Funds Dissemination Committee and give a recommendation on this
to the Executive Director (as mandated by the resolution creating the FDC)
see our page on meta
and feel free to send info, opinions etc. to that talk page.
If all the similar abbreviations above confuse you, the idea is this:
we'd like to know what you think about the FDC, the committee set up
by the board 2 years ago to recommend sending funds to
chapters and groups. And what should be the future of that
The second committee (the FDC AG) will discuss your
ideas and make a recommendation to the ED.
Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I personally care more about the message than the messenger
If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to
explain things to people like they were five because I confused them
with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all
the time, and often for the flimsiest of reasons. Like on the
advocacy_advisors list it turns out I was "moderated" because I was
supposedly off topic, but the moderator who took that unilateral
action won't tell me which posts were off topic or how to appeal, and
supposedly all of my posts there are going to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for topicality and those deemed topical will be
allowed. Even though both of those held for moderation since this
happened haven't been posted, and there have been no reasons offered
as to why they were not on topic.
Back before 2007, it seemed like there was going to be a never-ending
growth of editors, but when that turned into a slow decline, none of
the Foundation's strategic policy objectives changed. So now we are
still trying like mad to get the rights to copy marginally free works
that very few people have any interest in, but not lifting a finger to
help the typical potential editor, for whom life just keeps getting
worse in the current political climate. The Foundation has a lot of
resources and a lot of smart people, and I won't re-hash the list of
my suggestions now, but soon my associates and I will be able to use
the algorithms in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.0500v1.pdf to perform an
independent and transparent community support survey of updated
strategic objectives in support of community health.
Maybe the German Chapter's apparent refocus on supporting editors will help.
How about a race: Foundation staff verses community volunteers, to be
the first to perform a comprehensive editor support strategy survey?
"Earlier this week, we kicked
Policy Network <http://openpolicynetwork.org/>. We announced that the first
project within the Network is the Institute for Open
The Institute for Open Leadership is a training program to develop new
leaders in education, science, public policy, and other fields on the
values and implementation of openness in licensing, policies, and
practices. The Institute is looking for passionate public- and
private-sector professionals interested in learning more about openness and
wish to develop and implement an open policy in their field.
Interested applicants should review the application
information<http://openpolicynetwork.org/iol/#apply>and submit an
application by *June
30, 2014*. We plan to invite about 15 fellows to participate in the first
round of the Institute for Open Leadership. The in-person portion of the
Institute will be held in the San Francisco bay area in January 2015 (TBD:
either January 12-16 or January 19-23). Applications are open to
individuals anywhere in the world."
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre