a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made.
Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be
improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general.
In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1)
they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But
it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit
etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the
opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no
committee decision.
Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust
that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a
sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the
specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but
I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on
what led to these decisions.
But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any
further information published by the committee (not: individual members)
that I might be missing?
Best,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Christophe Henner <christophe.henner(a)gmail.com>
What you would like is that the FDC
recommendation was including more
arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as
the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to
have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
Am I understanding your comment correctly,
--
Christophe
On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do
regret
the bad precedent set here (as a movement member)
that the committee
doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
applicant?), state so. Etc.
Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.
I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback
for
the next round.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
> hi Lodewijk,
>
> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was
justified
> either by extraordinary circumstances or by
the early stage of
> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth,
which
> is often considered as as dangerous as a
wind-down), the financial
> reserves, etc.
>
> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2.
When
larger
cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
best,
dj
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org
wrote:
>
>> Hi Dariusz,
>>
>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
to
>> the arguments? That would make it much
more insightful. I was
personally
>> under the impression the maximum was 150%
by the way, but that
information
>> might have been outdated. Then it is at
least clear that a
technicality is
>> the sole cause for your rejection of part
of their budget (and could
>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>>
>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of
the amount they requested. I
find
>> the reasoning in their case quite poor
for such a major decision which
>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
>> scale down significantly. I'm
confident that you had very good and in
depth
>> discussions about this, but this is not
reflected in the
recommendation in
>> their specific case. I guess this might
be the case for a few more
>> applications.
>>
>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
>> great discussion, I feel it would be a
waste of your efforts if the
>> arguments are so shallow.
>>
>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
>> the cases.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
>>
>>> hi Lodewijk,
>>>
>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
>>> on providing further detailed
responses - we have already offered a
great
>>> many details in our overall
recommendations in terms of process and
>>> methodology.
>>>
>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
>>> budget growth capping, and also that
WCA membership fees have been
deducted
>>> for everyone (but not other
WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
>>> funding directly (or choose a
different model, once it is decided,
and the
>>> organization incorporated).
>>>
>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
what
>>> they asked for, while entities which
are medium to large, staffed and
>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor
in
>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate
plans (also because of the budget
>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
>>> grow more harmoniously.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dariusz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>wroteote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
>>>> single dollar. I assume more
detailed arguments will follow?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
>>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedi…
>>>>>
>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
>>>>> expressed earlier: this is
the future of our funds dissemination
and we
>>>>> will refine the process, but
this first round has exceeded my
expectations
>>>>> on all levels. Thanks
everyone!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak
<darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
>>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1,
2012-13
>>>>> > To: wikimediaannounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>>> announce
>>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the
year
>>>>> 2012-13.
>>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>>> recommendations by
>>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
>>>>> a
>>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals
were
>>>>> from 11
>>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
>>>>> > received after the
deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>>> decided
>>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
>>>>> would
>>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
and
>>>>> FDC
>>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing
these
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support
movement
>>>>> goals.
>>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session
in
>>>>> San
>>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>>> discussed
>>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for
each
>>>>> applying
>>>>> > entity.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
the
>>>>> process
>>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about
what
>>>>> works in
>>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
>>>>> > recommendations [2] and
to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>>> on-wiki
>>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use
it
>>>>> in our
>>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's
recommendation, it
>>>>> should be
>>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with
the
>>>>> complaint
>>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>>> Operation of
>>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
>>>>> summary
>>>>> > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on
the
FDC
>>>>> > (Jan-Bart and
Patricio)
>>>>> > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
>>>>> portal page
>>>>> > designated for this purpose [5]
>>>>> > - These board representatives will present the complaint to
the
WMF
>>>>> > Board at the same time
it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>>> > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair
of
a
>>>>> > funding-seeking
entity.
>>>>> > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>>> submission of
>>>>> > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of
day
>>>>> UTC
>>>>> > November 22)
>>>>> > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
filing
>>>>> a
>>>>> > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is
resolved.
>>>>> > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint
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 recommendation.
>>>>> > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>>> investigation if
>>>>> > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [1]
>>>>> >
>>>>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou…
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [2]
>>>>> >
>>>>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-201…
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [3]
>>>>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [4]
>>>>> >
>>>>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_…
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [5]
>>>>> >
>>>>>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommen…
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __________________________
>>>>> > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> > profesor zarządzania
>>>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> >
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > Unsubscribe:
>>>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________________
>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> profesor zarządzania
>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>
>
>
--
__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: