Dear Pine,

Thank you for your concern about the Grant Advisory Committee (GAC). You are correct that there is a consistently low level of participation by GAC members and we are seeking to address this issue through a revamp of the process and available resources.

The Project and Event Grants (PEG) program accepts proposals on a rolling basis and we strive to provide timely responses to all requests. All GAC members are given notice and at least 2 weeks to comment on proposals. Often times, we work with requesters on improving their proposal to address GAC member concerns and accept it before the GAC goes back to change their initial assessments. Please note that the GAC is an advisory committee, not a decision-making body, and on rare occasions WMF staff's duty of care may lead them to disagree with their recommendations.

We also welcome all community members to comment on PEG requests. This is a good opportunity to remind everyone reading this to not hesitate to comment on any open proposal. Open proposals can always be seen here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Index/Requests#Open_submissions

Best,

Alex

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Tilman,

1. Would WMF please document in the FAQ that Global Education, excluding

the US/CAN program, is funded and managed through Grantmaking, and the US/CAN Education Program is run through the independent Wiki Education Foundation?

2. Would someone please produce a redline version of the AP that compares

the final AP to the version that was sent to the FDC?

3. I suggest that in the future that the Board be given at least one month

between their meeting for reviewing the AP and the proposed effective date of the AP. Otherwise, if the Board's meeting date is within a few days of the AP effective date, the Board may feel pressure to move quickly to approve the AP, and if the Board doesn't pass the AP then unless I am mistaken the Foundation has no spending or fundraising authority as of the start of the next fiscal year.

4. The FAQ says that P&E grants are "reviewed by the 28-member Grant

Advisory Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GAC or GAC)". However, as far as I can tell, GAC is functioning at a very low level. This grant [1] for about US$7000 received only one vote among all 28 GAC members, and it was an oppose vote, yet WMF approved the grant. This grant [2] for about US$9000 had no support or oppose votes from GAC members, yet WMF approved the grant. This grant [3] for about US$30,000 received one oppose, one abstention, and one "no comment" among all 28 grant members, yet WMF approved the grant. Something seems wrong here. I have heard that GAC is being revamped but in the meantime I am concerned about such large grants being approved with so little community review. My worst-case scenario is that WMF approves something with expensive and damaging consequences like IEP or AFT5 that might have been refused or might have been better designed if it had been subjected to meaningful community scrutiny. Because the Annual Plan seems to assume that GAC is working well, I feel that this is an issue that needs urgent attention.

Thanks,

Pine

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Metro/Institutional_Growth_a... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/WM_ZA/WLM-ZA-2014 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WM_AM/Wiki_Camp

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

Hi all,

the Wikimedia Foundation's 2014-15 Annual Plan has just been published at

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2014-15_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan....

...

accompanied by a Q&A:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2014-2015_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Ans...

...

The plan was approved by the Board of Trustees on June 29, 2014.

-- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB

---

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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...

...

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you for the update, Alex.

I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if the override is to approve a proposal. I understand that WMF might find a reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as that the grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it anyway, I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests that the WMF isn't serious about its own grantmaking process.

As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF and applicants) and implicit in that is that its opinions -- while always taken carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will be in opposition to the final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and we are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to imply by "previously had agreed to work with") in doing so. We are doing our job.

Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against which the committee has "develop[ed] consensus". Take another look at the examples you brought yourself -- one "oppose" vote in a committee of 28 does not consensus make.

I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current

system is not working, as everyone seems to agree.

I disagree. In fact no one agrees "the system is not working", as far as I can tell, except you. On the contrary "the system", i.e. the Project and Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a less-than-desired level of participation in its advisory committee. While that is certainly something we are endeavoring to improve (recognizing, of course, it is ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and means), it should not be taken to mean "the system is not working".

I am curious, what alternatives are you exploring?

You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3].

Cheers,

Asaf

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Rev... [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion

Pete, I am looking more at process than outcomes.

Asaf, perhaps I was unclear in my statement, so I will try again.

1. I do not expect WMF and grantmaking committees to agree all of the time. What I hope for is that WMF will not override a committee vote if a committee develops consensus against a proposal. Given GAC's low participation numbers it seems unlikely that they are forming consensus, as you say, but in the examples I gave WMF has approved grants that the majority (of one!) voted against. I think this is a risky practice that establishing grants committees is partly designed to mitigate. I am glad to hear that WMF has never done an override of a consensus vote of GAC and I hope it stays that way.

2. I would say that "the system is not working" if there is too low of a level of participation by Committee members to form consensus on proposals, and one thing there does seem to be consensus about is that the level of participation is too low.

3. Thank you for the links.

Pine

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:

As someone who has engaged with several different grants, in different roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just said.

Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant program were run in such a way that there *wasn't* any visible disagreement, that would be a problem. I think those working on this program have, over the years, done an admirable job of working through the inevitable disagreements.

Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

Thank you for the update, Alex.

I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if

the

...

...

override is to approve a proposal. I understand that WMF might find a reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as

that

...

...

the grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it

anyway,

...

I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests

that

...

...

the WMF isn't serious about its own grantmaking process.

As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF

and

...

applicants) and implicit in that is that its opinions -- while always

taken

...

carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will be in opposition to the final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and

we

...

are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to imply by "previously had agreed to work with") in doing so. We are doing our job.

Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against which the committee has "develop[ed] consensus". Take another look at

the

...

examples you brought yourself -- one "oppose" vote in a committee of 28 does not consensus make.

I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current

...

system is not working, as everyone seems to agree.

I disagree. In fact no one agrees "the system is not working", as far

as I

...

can tell, except you. On the contrary "the system", i.e. the Project and Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a

less-than-desired

...

level of participation in its advisory committee. While that is

certainly

...

something we are endeavoring to improve (recognizing, of course, it is ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and

means),

...

it should not be taken to mean "the system is not working".

...

I am curious, what alternatives are you exploring?

You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3].

Cheers,

Asaf

[1]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp

...

[2]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Rev...

...

[3]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion

...

-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe