I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example, take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of revised budget in mind that came to that new total - it would be interesting to see that revised budget.
That said, I think WMFR was one of the better explained - they felt there were serious problems with the application so want WMFR to re-apply in Round 2. Some explanation of where the $90k figure came from would be nice, but it looks like the amount they felt was needed (in addition to WMFR's reserves) in order to tide them over until the next round.
On 15 November 2012 20:29, Lodewijk lodewijk@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 I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated.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@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@effeietsanders.org wrote:
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@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-wikimedia...
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@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@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@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_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@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
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l