matanya moses wrote:
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests have now been published at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/14803740
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this round of funding. [2]
[...]
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new applicant. This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Hi.
Apologies if these questions have already been asked/answered elsewhere, I did try to skim this thread, the Meta-Wiki page, and its talk page first.
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or Wikinews or Wikiversity.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of donor money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only admonish the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
MZMcBride
Il 25/nov/2015 05:01 "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com ha scritto:
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or Wikinews or Wikiversity.
I think this is a very good question. It would be very useful to know how
much the sister projects cost (in terms of energy, bandwidth). I'll add that it would be useful to know how many donations come from theirs banners.
I think I'm not mistaken to assume that there is no other cost involved (as there is no software development for any of them). Aubrey
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary or Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of donor money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only admonish the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.
Thanks, Mike
I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
Michael Peel wrote:
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all, then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement."
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to answer the question asked. :-) Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata :: Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the other be as well?
MZMcBride
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation?
Somewhat, yes. The process for community consultations and feedback is in the works, but essentially WMF currently does not undergo the same kind of application as the affiliates. One of the reasons for this is the size of WMF: its huge budget makes it a much more time-consuming and expertise-demanding endeavor to evaluate it, and the FDC is composed of volunteers (believe me, I chaired the FDC for three terms, and just handling the two rounds is lots of work). A separate round would make it easier, and yet it would require three sessions per year, so it would further decrease the poll of available candidates for the FDC,
Even with WMDE the analysis is really a challenge, and their budget is significantly smaller than that of WMF - and the quality of feedback and evaluation from the FDC is of highest importance. With budgets this size it is a somewhat different set of skills and experience that is needed than at the level of organizations with budgets roughly 100 times smaller.
Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
I hope you realize that the Board has decided to set up the FDC as an advisory body :) The FDC is making recommendations to the Board, it is the Board that makes the allocations. As of know, the Board has not decided to cede the WMF's initial review to the FDC, and it approves the budget by itself.
In my personal opinion (which I often voiced during my tenure at the FDC, and which I uphold as a Board member now) it would be reasonable, useful and justified to have some parts of the WMF's budget undergo the FDC process. The WMF's executive team is also generally supportive of this idea and it is my understanding, that the conversation on how to make it happen most effectively is ongoing. We basically need to find a sensible way to do it, to make the best use of the FDC's, staff's, and the Board's time and skills, for the optimal outcome.
However, I want to emphasize that even if just for symbolic reasons it is important that the WMF serves as a paragon for other organizations in our movement.
TL;DR: I personally would love to make it happen, but I also think it is imperative to make it right.
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
I hope you realize that the Board has decided to set up the FDC as an advisory body :) The FDC is making recommendations to the Board, it is the Board that makes the allocations. As of know, the Board has not decided to cede the WMF's initial review to the FDC, and it approves the budget by itself.
Thank you for this context. It definitely helps better understand the current situation and why it is the way it is. It would be nice if we could find a way to link relevant mailing list replies such as this to the round recommendation subpages. It might just be me, but I feel like the important background information is difficult for readers to grasp.
I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate requests, except us." It seems progress has been ebbing and flowing.
However, I want to emphasize that even if just for symbolic reasons it is important that the WMF serves as a paragon for other organizations in our movement.
For sure. It seems perfectly reasonable to maintain the same standards for yourself that you hold others to. This would likely include guidelines for disaggregated reporting, I think.
MZMcBride
On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I realize that the Funds Dissemination Committee is advisory, but I thought it had been set up by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as "all large affiliate requests, including us," not "all large affiliate requests, except us." It seems progress has been ebbing and flowing.
Just as an extra clarification on this point specifically: it's not about whether an affiliate is "large" but more about whether they are eligible[1] and whether they want to apply for an Annual Plan Grant.
There are several affiliate organisations across Wikimedia that have larger budgets than some of the FDC-applicants, but have never applied for Annual Plan Grant funding because they have access to external sources of revenue. For example, the primary sources of income for Wikimedia Poland[2] and Wikimedia Indonesia[3] are external (national charity-tax rebate scheme; philanthropic grants).
The role of the WMF itself in making its planning/budgeting accountable to "the movement" is, as we have seen, contested.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Eligibility [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Reports/2014#Structure_of... [3] http://www.wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Laporan_keuangan_2014/Catatan
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you all for your time, attention and care. /a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked on this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
Michael Peel wrote:
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all, then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement."
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to answer the question asked. :-) Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata :: Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the other be as well?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. Then there was a significant regression with 2014-2015 both in terms of the review period and in terms of WMF's responsiveness to questions; some questions from July 2015 still haven't been answered such as how the 40 new budgeted FTEs align with the overall annual plan. While the compressed review time was a big problem, I'm actually more disappointed with the lack of responses to community questions when there has been plenty of time to respond to them. The change in tone from the WMF after the most recent statement from the FDC is welcome, and I hope that we'll see meaningful improvements in transparency going forward. I appreciate the interest of the Board, the FDC, and Lila in making improvements.
Pine
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you all for your time, attention and care. /a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked
on
this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
Michael Peel wrote:
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the WMF anyway.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all, then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement."
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education
projects).
It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to answer the question asked. :-) Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata :: Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the other be as well?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF budget in their current rounds schedule?
I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this, naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact, we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"
Dariusz, without speaking on behalf of the FDC, and only my own opinion - I don't think the question is if the FDC will recommend how much money the WMF need to get - as the fact that if they will enter the FDC process, under the SAME requirements as other affiliates (the requirement for a detailed budget, clear targets and goals, strategy and others) - only the process himself, without the recommendations, will be much more transparent and clear to the community then ever. This will allow them to have real time and enough data to give a REAL feedback, and also to the FDC, as much as they can. When he has not specific deadline (like others have), it turns out that every year he select a different "community process" (if any..)
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF budget in their current rounds schedule?
I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this, naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact, we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
hi Itzik,
the idea that we've been discussing for a while has been introducing a part of WMF budget ("non-core") into the FDC process. The whole is not viable for various reasons, but a part - sure.
I also agree that the FDC may be a catalyst of introducing more transparency, better and SMARTer goals, strategy, etc.
My doubts only refer to the FDC's ability to deal with budgets of this magnitude - and this caution should be exercised for any organization within our movement when it reaches certain size (a good question would e.g. be if WMDE is there yet).
best,
dj
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
Dariusz, without speaking on behalf of the FDC, and only my own opinion - I don't think the question is if the FDC will recommend how much money the WMF need to get - as the fact that if they will enter the FDC process, under the SAME requirements as other affiliates (the requirement for a detailed budget, clear targets and goals, strategy and others) - only the process himself, without the recommendations, will be much more transparent and clear to the community then ever. This will allow them to have real time and enough data to give a REAL feedback, and also to the FDC, as much as they can. When he has not specific deadline (like others have), it turns out that every year he select a different "community process" (if any..)
*Regards,Itzik Edri* Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF budget in their current rounds schedule?
I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this, naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact, we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
Fae On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
the
Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
Wikidata,
does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
know
how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
It's
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to accept responsibility. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
Fae On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
and
there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
the
Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
the
FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
a
proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
Wikidata,
does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
know
how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
here
there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the
Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
It's
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
and
in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
both
strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I can't find something wrong with Pundit's argument based opinions and explanations. Kind regards Ziko
2015-11-26 12:33 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to accept responsibility. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
Fae On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
and
there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
the
Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
the
FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
a
proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
Wikidata,
does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
know
how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
here
there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the
Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
It's
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
and
in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
both
strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi Gerard,
I'm sorry that they came across to you as weasel words - they weren't meant to be, they were meant to be an explanation of how the FDC operates. It wasn't a refusal to accept responsibility - the FDC is responsible for its recommendations, but the WMF board then decides on whether to approve the recommendations or not. That's particularly relevant in the case of recommendations related to the WMF, which is what MzMcBride was asking about.
Thanks, Mike
On 26 Nov 2015, at 04:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Some explanations simply read as weasel words. Nothing was lost in translation. You either have an opinion and you accept that people consider responsibility part of the parcel or you do not and that is in my opinion worse. It is not so bad to be wrong, it happens. It is worse to refuse to accept responsibility. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
No, this was a simple explanation of the facts of the limited authority of the FDC, not an attempt to weasel.
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
Fae On 26 Nov 2015 10:58, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart
and
there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for
the
Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to
the
FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or
a
proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for
Wikidata,
does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to
know
how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on
Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project'
here
there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the
Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects).
It's
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work,
and
in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken
both
strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, They don’t look like weasel words to me. How would you try to describe the FDC's role more accurately? Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:58 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11067 - Release Date: 11/26/15
Hoi, The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board on the dissemination of funds.
By adding the extra baggage, you make it a negative. The FDC recommends and it is responsible for that. The board does not have the bandwidth to do the work again. It relies on the recommendation and THEREFORE the FDC has an unenviable job to do. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2015 at 16:26, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, They don’t look like weasel words to me. How would you try to describe the FDC's role more accurately? Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 12:58 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations for 2015-2016 Round 1 APG grant requests
Hoi, Sorry but "The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF Board." qualify as weasel words. You make proposals and hope, expect that they will be accepted. Not taking responsibility for your actions and blaming them is the same as saying "we are only saying and they were not thinking themselves."
Not good, not appreciated. Thanks, GerardM
On 25 November 2015 at 15:56, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi MZMcBride,
The Wikimedia Foundation has a section under "Organisation-specific remarks", but isn't included in the "Funding recommendations" chart and there's no amount requested, amount allocated, or proposal listed for the Wikimedia Foundation. Why is that?
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include recommendations about the WMF anyway.
If Wikimedia Deutschland is required to separate out costs for Wikidata, does that mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is required to split out costs for Wikipedia and its other projects? I'd be quite curious to know how much money is being spent by the Wikimedia Foundation on Wiktionary
or
Wikinews or Wikiversity.
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here - there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education projects). It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
The report includes this note:
The FDC is appalled by the closed way that the WMF has undertaken both strategic and annual planning, and the WMF’s approach to budget transparency (or lack thereof).
Sort of inline with the first question, but perhaps more direct: what power does the Funds Dissemination Committee have over the amount of
donor
money allocated toward the Wikimedia Foundation? Can the FDC only
admonish
the organization, but not actually withhold funds?
The FDC provides recommendations to the WMF Board, who then decide on them. The FDC doesn't handle funds directly, so in no case does it withhold, or spend, funds, instead it recommends doing so to the WMF
Board.
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4477/11067 - Release Date: 11/26/15
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
Thoughts?
Pine
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a similar composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz
Based on what I heard from Anasuya and members of the FDC over the years, I feel that asking the FDC to take on the WMF budget is too much of a scope expansion, unless a third round of reviews is added each year and is dedicated to the WMF budget. The only realistic alternative that I can see is a new committee, which I think would be better anyway because the members of that committee could develop deep familiarity with the WMF budget. WMF is an unusually complex organization so this added depth would be valuable. Also, this would let the FDC staff stay completely clear of the awkward position of reviewing the budgets of their colleagues elsewhere in WMF including the budgets of their managers.
Pine On Nov 27, 2015 5:51 AM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members.
IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
-greg (User:Pine)
On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any case, the WMF published plan was far below the standard of documentation that one would expect of the largest organization in the movement, so I think that a change is in order. It sounds like there is now consensus that there should be change, which itself is progress. The nature and extent of the changes that are acutually made will tell us how serious WMF is about transparency and good governance.
Pine On Nov 27, 2015 11:53 AM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members.
IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
-greg (User:Pine)
On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee
gives
me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division
of
the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance
of
the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board
as a
whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most
common
FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence
to
review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited
time,
and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also
part
of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about that.
Pine
On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the
Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any case, the WMF published plan was far below the standard of documentation that one would expect of the largest organization in the movement, so I think that a change is in order. It sounds like there is now consensus that there should be change, which itself is progress. The nature and extent of the changes that are acutually made will tell us how serious WMF is about transparency and good governance.
Pine
On Nov 27, 2015 11:53 AM, "Gregory Varnum" gregory.varnum@gmail.com
wrote:
Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of
the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members.
IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee
should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
-greg (User:Pine)
On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature
of
Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would
include
some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget
Committee
could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee
gives
me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core"
division of
the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the
performance of
the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The
Budget
Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board
as a
whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most
common
FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's
competence to
review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited
time,
and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is
also part
of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example -
it
will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy,
goals,
budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the
WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I meant User:Varnent. :)
I blame the turkey chemicals. :p
-greg (User:Varnent)
On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:
Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members.
IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
-greg (User:Pine)
On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
yes, and I agree that this is a very good idea to ponder. It addresses a couple of problems at once (including a major one, of FDC ability and capacity to tackle WMF as well).
dj
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an organization that has a similar scale.
Lila
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
similar
composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps...
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance
of
the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as
a
whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think the 3rd party review might work, although it might be costly in terms of consulting fees.
As a part of the 3rd party review, I hope that there would be an analysis of the costs and benefits of moving WMF to a more economical location than San Francisco.
Pine
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org