Hi Jan-Bart,
I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be
subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who
else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that
anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that you
experienced my feedback in such negative way.
But similarly, I wouldn't want to mistake the opinion of individual FDC
members for the reasoning of the committee as a whole. The comments made on
the talk pages are made by individuals (sometimes not even members), and
not by the committee - that is why I dont want to assume that they are
shared by the committee as a whole.
As I understand the process, there was a big preperation - that preperation
is well documented. Also, the way the process has been followed (in all
it's abstractism) has been well documented - this is helpful for
understanding the process better next time of course and valuable. However,
then there is this 4 day meeting. And suddenly, all information available
seems to be missing - unless I'm overlooking something. I know you have
been present at the meeting, so you might read things differently than I
do. But from the arguments given I really have a hard time understanding
what the reasons have been regarding the different decisions. This is not a
simple general hunger for more details (which is there as well, I'll agree
on that), but it is just not being able to understand.
I do not disagree that the time spent asking questions publicly was worth
while - but this is all (as far as I understand it) before the 4 day
retreat. Before actual committee decisions started.
Now I can indeed go to the talk pages and proposals, combine it with some
general comments made by Dariusz and probably come to an 80% understanding
by guessing. However, call me silly but I wouldn't like to rely on the
quality of my own guesswork to understand the committee's decision.
Christophe: One example is quite clear: if the 120% reference point was
used, I would like to see that reflected in the decision arguments. That
information is not present in any of the proposals' recommendations and
still Dariusz explains that it was a major reason. In the French case I
would have appreciated it if they could have explained a little more why
they reduced it so much. As I understand from your emails it was in mutual
agreement - that would have been a helpful argument. The quality of the
proposed projects could have been another. In the case of Argentina I was
missing arguments why it was accepted fully. Something along the lines of
'they have good plans that make a good fit with the goals they have in mind
and form a stabalizing factor in the region' (making this up as I go) would
be an improvement. At the same time it is hard for me to explain what is
missing, as I wasn't present at the deliberations, so the best I could do
is guess what could have been the reasons.
Finally: perhaps I should reiterate this: I do think the FDC did good work
at least until their meeting. From that moment onwards, I simply cannot
judge it, because I lack the information. I am not assuming good or bad
faith, and would be happy to assume all the best. But I'm mainly aiming for
the future. This FDC is extremely important in the way our movement
functions (or doesn't function) and will probably become even more
important. To make their work accepted though, the committee should explain
their reasoning well - as a committee.
everyting in my personal opinion unless stated otherwise,
kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/16 Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede(a)wikimedia.org>
Hey Lodewijk,
So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the
situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent
and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and
YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is
true. A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do
always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one
detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has
decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was
the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can
indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to
indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion.
And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer
you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot
of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common
decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be
discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this
time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on
detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their
application (as will you when you visit their proposal and talk pages) and
can hopefully move forward with the comments received. Its not the FDC's
job to make all details of an application and their opinion available to
you in a nice summary document because you don't want to read the plans...
The decisions do NOT stand on their own and are part of the FDC portal,
which provides more transparency than you have ever seen in any funds
distribution of this size anywhere in the world I would guess.
And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a
funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major
factors, and not many details. These factors are different in some cases,
but there are never "10s" of factors...
The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they
don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL
give during this round.
Jan-Bart
On 15 Nov 2012, at 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