On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: 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. 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"

On 27 November 2015 at 06:04, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote: 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_o… [3] http://www.wikimedia.or.id/wiki/Laporan_keuangan_2014/Catatan wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

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(a)wikimedia.org> 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(a)alk.edu.pl> 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(a)mikepeel.net> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

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(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote: It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives me goosebumps... 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

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(a)alk.edu.pl> 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I meant User:Varnent. :) I blame the turkey chemicals. :p -greg (User:Varnent)

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