The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC’s recommendation, it should be submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio) - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking entity. - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22) - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
_______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio) - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking entity. - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22) - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars….)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations
got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations
by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works
in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should
be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation
of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission
of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated
by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation
if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations
by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should
be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission
of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated
by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation
if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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).
Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at least two years.
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the WMF.
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot would happen...
On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the WMF.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
hi Nathan,
other WCA-related costs are clearly pertaining to the fact of WCA being organized. People need to travel, meet, etc. to make it happen. Just as Thomas mentions, there needs to be funding for stuff that is not operational yet, but being organized.
Membership fees though are not such a clear thing, as some chapters did include it, some didn't, and it was also visible that the level of those membership fees is not established yet - so practically, these costs were more like conditional reserves. Also, the membership model was discussed as potentially not optimal (for accountability, transparency, etc.), and FDC could be potentially a better way to address it, once WCA establishes, after the Board eligibility approval (just as Jan-Bart points out).
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the WMF.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hey Thomas,
I think I can take this one. I think that the FDC has expressed that its up to the WCA to determine its own financing model, while at the same time indicating that the membership fees model might not be the optimal solution for this, and that there are better ways)
At the same time the FDC has already expressed that the current FDC framework might not work for every situation (and has recommended one or two exceptions this time around). It is also suggesting that the Board of Trustees might want to make an exception to the current rules for applying to the FDC because of the unique nature of the WCA.
(and I think it is a good suggestion which is worth discussing)
Jan-Bart
On 15 Nov 2012, at 20:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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).
Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at least two years. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
recommendations by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
allocated by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Hi everyone,
I send this mail as a representative of Wikimedia France.
Wikimedia France acknowledges and agrees with the FDC decision.
The arguments provided with the decision makes sense to us. Wikimedia France will submit, if possible, a request for the round 2.
On behalf of Wikiemdia France board,
Christophe HENNER | Membre du Conseil d'Administration ------------------------------------------------------------------- › Mail : christophe.henner@wikimedia.fr › Mobile : +33(0)6 29 35 65 94 › Tel : +33(0)5 62 89 12 01 › Twitter : @Wikimedia_Fr ----------------------------------------------------- Wikimédia France | Association pour le libre partage de la connaissance | Visitez notre blog http://blog.wikimedia.fr
On 15 November 2012 21:29, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
recommendations by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
allocated by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example, take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of revised budget in mind that came to that new total - it would be interesting to see that revised budget.
That said, I think WMFR was one of the better explained - they felt there were serious problems with the application so want WMFR to re-apply in Round 2. Some explanation of where the $90k figure came from would be nice, but it looks like the amount they felt was needed (in addition to WMFR's reserves) in order to tide them over until the next round.
On 15 November 2012 20:29, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and
the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already
on
a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes).
Small
entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff
position,
which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
involved
in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
expressed
earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will
refine
the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
recommendations by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
a
total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
FDC
support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
San
Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
provide
overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
UTC
November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
allocated by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
recommendations by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
FDC
support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
provide
overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
allocated by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
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@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@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
recommendations by
December 15, 2012.
The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
a
total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
from 11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
FDC
support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
San
Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
applying
entity.
The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
provide
overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
in our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
Operation of
the FDC [4]:
- The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
summary
directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
- The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
portal page
designated for this purpose [5]
- These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
- Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
funding-seeking entity.
- Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
submission of
the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
UTC
November 22)
- Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
a
complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
- If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
extra
funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
allocated by
the FDC's initial recommendation.
- Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
investigation if
approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
on behalf of the FDC
Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
Am I understanding your comment correctly, -- Christophe
On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk lodewijk@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@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@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 > To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by > December 15, 2012. > > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying > entity. > > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. > > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of > the FDC [4]: > > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page > designated for this purpose [5] > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a > funding-seeking entity. > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC > November 22) > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by > the FDC's initial recommendation. > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. > > > > on behalf of the FDC > > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun... > > > > > [2] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013... > > > > [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process > > > > [4] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t... > > > > [5] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend... > > > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > profesor zarządzania > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Christophe,
I would like to see that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun... a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made. Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general. In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1) they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no committee decision.
Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on what led to these decisions.
But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any further information published by the committee (not: individual members) that I might be missing?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
Am I understanding your comment correctly,
Christophe
On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk lodewijk@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@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@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
and the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
what
they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor in
terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>wrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
> Hi Everyone > > Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
> created earlier today. > > >
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
> > I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those > involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
and we
> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
expectations
> on all levels. Thanks everyone! > > Jan-Bart > (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM > > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 > > To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to > announce > > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year > 2012-13. > > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these > recommendations by > > December 15, 2012. > > > > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
> a > > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were > from 11 > > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC > decided > > that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
> would > > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
and
> FDC > > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these > proposals > > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement > goals. > > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in > San > > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members > discussed > > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each > applying > > entity. > > > > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
the
> process > > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what > works in > > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to > provide > > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process > on-wiki > > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it > in our > > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the > > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. > > > > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it > should be > > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the > complaint > > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial > Operation of > > the FDC [4]: > > > > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word > summary > > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
FDC
> > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) > > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC > portal page > > designated for this purpose [5] > > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
WMF
> > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. > > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of
a
> > funding-seeking entity. > > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the > submission of > > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day > UTC > > November 22) > > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
filing
> a > > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. > > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in
an
> > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only
in
> > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to
release
> extra > > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not > allocated by > > the FDC's initial recommendation. > > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the > investigation if > > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. > > > > > > > > on behalf of the FDC > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) > > > > [1] > > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
> > > > > > > > > > [2] > > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
> > > > > > > > [3] >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
> > > > > > > > [4] > > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
> > > > > > > > [5] > > >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > __________________________ > > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > > profesor zarządzania > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > > i centrum badawczego CROW > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hey Lodewijk,
No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were to be sure I understood correctly what you meant.
I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so chapters can improve from on request to the next one.
That being said, I'm ok with the level of detail of the current recommendation. I mean, when I read the other chapters recommandation, I understood why the FDC make the recommandation they did. Do you have a specific case where it is not clear?
PS: My questions are really that questions, as I'm part of the FDC Advisory Group the answers/feedback do really interest me :) -- Christophe
On 15 November 2012 23:56, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Christophe,
I would like to see that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun... a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made. Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general. In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1) they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no committee decision.
Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on what led to these decisions.
But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any further information published by the committee (not: individual members) that I might be missing?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
Am I understanding your comment correctly,
Christophe
On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk lodewijk@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@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@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
and the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
what
they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor in
terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>wrote:
> Hi, > > From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some > organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > > 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org > >> Hi Everyone >> >> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
>> created earlier today. >> >> >>
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
>> >> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those >> involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
and we
>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
expectations
>> on all levels. Thanks everyone! >> >> Jan-Bart >> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) >> >> >> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> wrote: >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >> > To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > >> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to >> announce >> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >> 2012-13. >> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these >> recommendations by >> > December 15, 2012. >> > >> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
>> a >> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were >> from 11 >> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC >> decided >> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
>> would >> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
and
>> FDC >> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these >> proposals >> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement >> goals. >> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in >> San >> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members >> discussed >> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each >> applying >> > entity. >> > >> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
the
>> process >> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what >> works in >> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to >> provide >> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process >> on-wiki >> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it >> in our >> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >> > >> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it >> should be >> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the >> complaint >> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial >> Operation of >> > the FDC [4]: >> > >> > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word >> summary >> > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
FDC
>> > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >> > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC >> portal page >> > designated for this purpose [5] >> > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
WMF
>> > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >> > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of
a
>> > funding-seeking entity. >> > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the >> submission of >> > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day >> UTC >> > November 22) >> > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
filing
>> a >> > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >> > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in
an
>> > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only
in
>> > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to
release
>> extra >> > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not >> allocated by >> > the FDC's initial recommendation. >> > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the >> investigation if >> > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >> > >> > >> > >> > on behalf of the FDC >> > >> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >> > >> > [1] >> > >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [2] >> > >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
>> > >> > >> > >> > [3] >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>> > >> > >> > >> > [4] >> > >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
>> > >> > >> > >> > [5] >> > >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > __________________________ >> > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> > profesor zarządzania >> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >> > i centrum badawczego CROW >> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > >
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Lodewijk, 15/11/2012 23:28:
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. [...]
Don't worry, reading the entities' proposals and associated talks would only increase your confusion about the decisions.
Nemo
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@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@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@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hi Everyone
Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!
Jan-Bart (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 > To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by > December 15, 2012. > > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11 > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals. > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying > entity. > > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. > > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of > the FDC [4]: > > - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary > directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC > (Jan-Bart and Patricio) > - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page > designated for this purpose [5] > - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF > Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. > - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a > funding-seeking entity. > - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of > the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC > November 22) > - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a > complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. > - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an > amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in > extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra > funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by > the FDC's initial recommendation. > - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if > approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. > > > > on behalf of the FDC > > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) > > [1] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun... > > > > > [2] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013... > > > > [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process > > > > [4] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t... > > > > [5] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend... > > > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > profesor zarządzania > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
rupert.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
> Hi Everyone > > Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post > created earlier today. > > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia... > > I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those > involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As > expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we > will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations > on all levels. Thanks everyone! > > Jan-Bart > (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >> To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to > announce >> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year > 2012-13. >> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these > recommendations by >> December 15, 2012. >> >> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for > a >> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were > from 11 >> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were >> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC > decided >> that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals > would >> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and > FDC >> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these > proposals >> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement > goals. >> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in > San >> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members > discussed >> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each > applying >> entity. >> >> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the > process >> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what > works in >> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to > provide >> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these >> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process > on-wiki >> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it > in our >> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >> >> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it > should be >> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the > complaint >> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial > Operation of >> the FDC [4]: >> >> - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word > summary >> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC >> (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >> - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC > portal page >> designated for this purpose [5] >> - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF >> Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >> - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a >> funding-seeking entity. >> - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the > submission of >> the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day > UTC >> November 22) >> - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing > a >> complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >> - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an >> amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in >> extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release > extra >> funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not > allocated by >> the FDC's initial recommendation. >> - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the > investigation if >> approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >> >> >> >> on behalf of the FDC >> >> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >> >> [1] >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun... >> >> >> >> >> [2] >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013... >> >> >> >> [3] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process >> >> >> >> [4] >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t... >> >> >> >> [5] >> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> __________________________ >> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> profesor zarządzania >> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >> i centrum badawczego CROW >> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
From: rupert.thurner@gmail.com Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:01:49 +0000 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
+1 Abbas.
Dear Rupert,
in short: we've been using two main reference points. One was the previous year costs (and trying not to choke by exceeding 120% growth by far), the other was size of the entities.
Depending on the feedback from this round, the FDC may decide to change the model of posting the recommendations in the next round. This would, definitely, require working in a different timeframe, which would also help the chapters to be much more responsive about the projects beforehand (especially in this area, we've been occasionally suffering from information lags).
After the first round ends, we are planning to reflect on the process and prepare recommendations for the future, both in terms of the projects' format, discussing it, providing replies, making recommendations, and publishing them.
best,
dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
rupert.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
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@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@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@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap
was
used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add
that to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because
you
didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to
illustrate
why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning
to
the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the
final
allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
and the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most
of what
they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor in
terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the
budget
sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to
the
previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>wrote:
> Hi, > > From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some > organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > > 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org > >> Hi Everyone >> >> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
>> created earlier today. >> >> >>
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
>> >> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those >> involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
and we
>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
expectations
>> on all levels. Thanks everyone! >> >> Jan-Bart >> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) >> >> >> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> wrote: >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >>> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >>> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >>> To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> >>> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to >> announce >>> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >> 2012-13. >>> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these >> recommendations by >>> December 15, 2012. >>> >>> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
>> a >>> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were >> from 11 >>> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
>>> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC >> decided >>> that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
>> would >>> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
and
>> FDC >>> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these >> proposals >>> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement >> goals. >>> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in >> San >>> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members >> discussed >>> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each >> applying >>> entity. >>> >>> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
the
>> process >>> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what >> works in >>> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to >> provide >>> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
>>> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process >> on-wiki >>> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it >> in our >>> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >>> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >>> >>> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it >> should be >>> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the >> complaint >>> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial >> Operation of >>> the FDC [4]: >>> >>> - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word >> summary >>> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
FDC
>>> (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >>> - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC >> portal page >>> designated for this purpose [5] >>> - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
WMF
>>> Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >>> - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a >>> funding-seeking entity. >>> - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the >> submission of >>> the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day >> UTC >>> November 22) >>> - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
filing
>> a >>> complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >>> - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an >>> amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in >>> extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release >> extra >>> funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not >> allocated by >>> the FDC's initial recommendation. >>> - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the >> investigation if >>> approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >>> >>> >>> >>> on behalf of the FDC >>> >>> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >>> >>> [1] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [2] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
>>> >>> >>> >>> [3] >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>> >>> >>> >>> [4] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
>>> >>> >>> >>> [5] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> __________________________ >>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>> profesor zarządzania >>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > >
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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@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@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@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@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
and the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
what
they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor in
terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>wrote:
Hi,
From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
Kind regards, Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
> Hi Everyone > > Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
> created earlier today. > > >
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
> > I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those > involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
and we
> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
expectations
> on all levels. Thanks everyone! > > Jan-Bart > (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) > > > On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl > wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >> To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to > announce >> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year > 2012-13. >> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these > recommendations by >> December 15, 2012. >> >> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
> a >> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were > from 11 >> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
>> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC > decided >> that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
> would >> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and > FDC >> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these > proposals >> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement > goals. >> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in > San >> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members > discussed >> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each > applying >> entity. >> >> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the > process >> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what > works in >> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to > provide >> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
>> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process > on-wiki >> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it > in our >> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >> >> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it > should be >> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the > complaint >> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial > Operation of >> the FDC [4]: >> >> - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word > summary >> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
FDC
>> (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >> - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC > portal page >> designated for this purpose [5] >> - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
WMF
>> Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >> - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a >> funding-seeking entity. >> - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the > submission of >> the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day > UTC >> November 22) >> - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing > a >> complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >> - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an >> amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in >> extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release > extra >> funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not > allocated by >> the FDC's initial recommendation. >> - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the > investigation if >> approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >> >> >> >> on behalf of the FDC >> >> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >> >> [1] >> >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
>> >> >> >> >> [2] >> >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
>> >> >> >> [3] >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>> >> >> >> [4] >> >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
>> >> >> >> [5] >> >
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> __________________________ >> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> profesor zarządzania >> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >> i centrum badawczego CROW >> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 16 nov. 2012, at 10:18, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
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.
Hey
So no its not obvious that you were stating your own opinion, you often formulate things in such as way that they are not presented as your personal opinion but attempt instead to somehow come across as the "general" opinion. Thats at least how I read them.
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.
You don't have to :)
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.
So in the build up to the meeting on the 26th of October there was a lot of public part to the process. The meeting was completed 2 weeks ago and it took two weeks to finalize the recommendations in writing, come to common language etc. This is a 2 week period... how can "all information suddenly be missing"? And again. Getting the FDC to agree on wording etc. is essential, and the FDC decided to agree on the "main" issues per application (and in some case that might prove not to be enough
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.
the reason why the deadline for the recommendations was set for the 15th of November was to allow the FDC members to document their decisions and their reasoning. That takes time (and it not a lack of information, it is taking the time needed to carefully go through everything). This is the information level they decided on, if you feel that more is needed, that is your opinion but please realize that a team working across different time zones only has so much time to work together (and that all these people are volunteers who took time to travel to san francisco to spend four days in a stuffy meeting room...) But I will let them answer for themselves if they feel they want to.
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.
You don't have to , I think that the proposals + Questions asked + staff assesments + FDC comments will get you there in 95% of the cases. But then again, I might be wrong, and in some cases the FDC does need to share more information. As you know we have entered a 7 day period in which the chapters can comment on the recommendations, and we can see if the board requires more information before being able to approve the FDC recommendations (in which case the board will publicly ask for that information and the FDC will publicly share that information (if not limited by some confidentiality)
Finally: just to warn you: the FDC has now posted its recommendations, there are seven days during which participants can comment/object... and the board decides by December 15th. While that decision might take place before the 15th of december, it is likely to be two or three weeks away from today.... THIS IS NOT AN INFORMATION BLACKOUT! It is not a lack of transparency... its just the time we need to read through and discuss and finally vote.
Jan-Bart
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@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@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@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you didn't trust them with the money etc).
But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more applications.
I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
such
great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are so shallow.
I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the cases.
Kind regards,
Lodewijk
2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Lodewijk,
first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and methodology.
Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
and the
organization incorporated).
Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
what
they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
rigor in
terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
can
grow more harmoniously.
best,
dariusz
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>wrote:
> Hi, > > From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some > organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
every
> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow? > > Kind regards, > Lodewijk > > > 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org > >> Hi Everyone >> >> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
post
>> created earlier today. >> >> >>
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia...
>> >> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those >> involved in this first round, including all the participating
chapters. As
>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
and we
>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
expectations
>> on all levels. Thanks everyone! >> >> Jan-Bart >> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....) >> >> >> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >> wrote: >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl >>> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM >>> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13 >>> To: wikimediaannounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> >>> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to >> announce >>> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year >> 2012-13. >>> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these >> recommendations by >>> December 15, 2012. >>> >>> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
for
>> a >>> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were >> from 11 >>> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
were
>>> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC >> decided >>> that since it was the first time for the process, the late
proposals
>> would >>> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and >> FDC >>> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these >> proposals >>> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement >> goals. >>> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in >> San >>> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members >> discussed >>> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each >> applying >>> entity. >>> >>> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the >> process >>> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what >> works in >>> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to >> provide >>> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
these
>>> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process >> on-wiki >>> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it >> in our >>> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the >>> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below. >>> >>> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it >> should be >>> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the >> complaint >>> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial >> Operation of >>> the FDC [4]: >>> >>> - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word >> summary >>> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
FDC
>>> (Jan-Bart and Patricio) >>> - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC >> portal page >>> designated for this purpose [5] >>> - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
WMF
>>> Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. >>> - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a >>> funding-seeking entity. >>> - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the >> submission of >>> the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day >> UTC >>> November 22) >>> - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing >> a >>> complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. >>> - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an >>> amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in >>> extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release >> extra >>> funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not >> allocated by >>> the FDC's initial recommendation. >>> - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the >> investigation if >>> approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. >>> >>> >>> >>> on behalf of the FDC >>> >>> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair) >>> >>> [1] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [2] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013...
>>> >>> >>> >>> [3] >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>> >>> >>> >>> [4] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_t...
>>> >>> >>> >>> [5] >>> >>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommend...
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> __________________________ >>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>> profesor zarządzania >>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > >
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.cl wrote:
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation to do it.
I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we need to re-think it.
Dear Dariusz, dear Jan-Bart,
Thank you very much for the hard work, you are volunteers as we all are. I am also admiring your insight and - pacience.
A short note on the WCA: The WCA has never asked contributions from the member chapters, and there is still no budget. We will see how it will be financed in future, and I am confident that there will be found a reasonable solution.
Kind regards Ziko
They did their job to evaluate more than 10 extensive applications, make their recommendations and provide a long report. They have even answered the questions and probably will be able to do if you have more questions. That was they work as volunteer and they did it. Probably everybody would like something different (as more details about every chapters) but they are not our employees and they have their right to say "We think that is enough".
And once again, I want to remember that not everybody here speaks or write English as a native. Sometimes is really easy to demand people to write long reports, speak and engage in discussions when you have the privilege to be a speaker of the "global language", but it is not easy for all of us. This is something that must be considered if we are talking about "global movement", "inclusion of developing countries" and so on.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.cl wrote:
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation to do it.
I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we need to re-think it.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
thanks, Osmar.
I don't have to state the obvious, that over the last couple of weeks we've been putting several hours per day into the FDC process, besides our real jobs, and besides the 4-day session we held. This is what needed to be done and we have no complaints and Thomas is right that being a volunteer is no excuse. It actually means that we participate voluntary, by free will, and without lowering any of the professional standards we bring from our real life.
Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter.
One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with.
I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side).
best,
Dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.clwrote:
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you say it is irrelevant? Boo... (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement, not only about the FDC)
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter.
One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with.
I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side).
best,
Dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.clwrote:
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and
so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the entities.
dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.clwrote:
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you say it is irrelevant? Boo... (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement, not only about the FDC)
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter.
One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with.
I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side).
best,
Dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.clwrote:
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and
so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each
chapter,
but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you
can't
expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Yes, I know ;) But it certainly has a effect, larger or smaller. Probably, you would be faster if you can write a report in Polish and you discussed with others in Polish.
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the entities.
dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito < osmar@wikimediachile.cl> wrote:
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you say it is irrelevant? Boo... (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement, not only about the FDC)
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter.
One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with.
I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time.
However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side).
best,
Dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito osmar@wikimediachile.clwrote:
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I
would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change
and so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each
chapter,
but about the process as a whole.
Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you
can't
expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that
she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed.
I
thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much
more
detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A
well
written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports.
It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what
it
is actually meant to achieve.
Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a body, i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down.
Nemo
On Nov 17, 2012 7:28 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps).
You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption
in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a body, i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down.
I don't they just plucked the numbers out of thin air.
Dear all,
The Wikimedia UK board discussed the FDC's allocation proposals this morning. We thank the FDC and the staff involved in the process for their hard work and detailed consideration.
We accept their proposed allocation. We also had a productive discussion in the light of the FDC's feedback on the deliverability of aspects of our plan, and will bear these in mind as we develop our 2013 budget. We will be providing some feedback about aspects of the process in the next couple of weeks.
Regards,
Chris Wikimedia UK Chair
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
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.
Thanks very much to the members of the FDC who took on a brand-new process and worked through lots and lots of often-confusing reading and long meetings. Thanks also to the WMF staff who put in tons of work behind the scenes organizing the process, reading proposals, organizing meetings, etc; to the advisory group who worked hard to flesh out this whole idea; to the board representatives who are conveying this all back to the board; and to everyone who's commented and helped out.
And thanks Dariusz for trying to answer everyone's questions -- that part is never easy!
best, phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org