On 23 November 2015 at 21:04, Pine W wiki.pine@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
Thank you for your question, Pine. WMDE did not submit a restricted grant request for Wikidata. WMDE submitted a restricted grant request for Wikidata and other software projects, and then said that it was not able to disaggregate the budgets for each of these two separate projects. Most other proposals were able to provide greater detail on the cost of individual programs within their proposal, despite the fact that they sought dramatically fewer resources. As well, the Wikidata project specifically is working toward a direct funding package with the WMF, and it will be essential for those costs to be clearly disaggregated in order for this to happen. They will not be able to include the costs of other programs in that agreement, and they will have to be able to more accurately apportion costs such as rent, administrative overhead, supplies and services.
In addition, it has sectioned off the majority of its budget from direct FDC input, stating that it is not seeking Annual Plan Grant (APG) funding for that portion of its budget. Nonetheless, that budget is paid for out of money intended for the growth of the movement. FDC members were able to identify several points in that aspect of the WMDE annual plan that appear to be disproportionately funded compared to similar programs from other chapters, and the FDC believed that there are plenty of opportunities for cost saving in the administrative and other areas that would ensure funding for the planned software development which is intended to provide benefit to both the local editing community and the Wikimedia movement.
I will note that I am going to post the same response to Marcus Cyron's comments on the talk page[1], as I believe his comments are in a similar vein.
User:Risker - FDC member
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendatio...