Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Memb...
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.viczian@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
Vince
2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
"initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
Vince
2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement.
I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation).
Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
means
to justify that to the stakeholders.
The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).
I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization,
service or
project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables".
WMF is one stakeholders.
The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on.
In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter
because WMF
is *one of the stakeholders*.
And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a
decision
like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy
in
order to attract stakeholders.
Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk,
the
consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder
with
less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter.
This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of
biggest
budget.
regards
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
> Hi Balazs, > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion > of
the
FDC > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but
I was
an > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and
ran a
> ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination > board
for
> > best, > > dariusz "pundit" > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < > balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is
more
> > or less on its maximum I think. > > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the
closest
> > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review -
it is
> > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a > > full "business plan" - review) > > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global
goals,
> > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you > > say
it
> > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and > > inexperienced > > group of people are handling > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it
works
> > pretty well. > > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from > > such
a
> setup. > > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes
that
> > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated > > ombudsperson for the case(s). > > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are
visibly
> > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a > > real > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the > > "incoherentness" of reviews. > > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical
changes to
> > the system imo. > > > > Balazs > > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com: > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare
three
> > years, > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. > > > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. > > > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider
that
> > Amical > > > is the best example to follow. > > > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than
other
> > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is > > surrealistic. > > > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a
strong
> glue > > > within the community > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external > > > or > internal > > > questions (may be the opposite) > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small > > > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. > > > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest
to look
> in > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter
and to
> check > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community > to > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been > > > a
good
> > > solution to improve the community participation to the > > > projects. > > > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot
in the
> > > biggest projects. > > > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity > > and > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the
historical
> > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but
there
are > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential"
editors
> and > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. > > > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. > > > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the > > > decreasing
is
not > > > beneficial. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" sydney.poore@gmail.com > > > ha > scritto: > > > > > >> Hi Patrik, > > >> > > >> > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the
majority
of > > the > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests
to the
> FDC > > >> for > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around
strategic
> > >> planning, > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount
of
room > > for > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement > > >> (including
the
> WMF.) > > >> > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the
largest
> > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to > > >> deliver impact > to > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In
many
> > instances > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to
develop
> and > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making
recommendations
> > about > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific > > >> project
or
> > program, > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an > > organizations > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated > > >> projects.) > > >> > > >> > > >> Warm regards, > > >> > > >> Sydney Poore > > >> User:FloNight > > >> Member FDC > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > Recenzje > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > Pacific Standard: >
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > The Wikipedian: >
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
Balazs,
if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years".
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu
wrote:
Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Memb...
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
years
of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
Board,
or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
people
with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
balazs.viczian@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
Vince
2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
"initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
Vince
2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement.
I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation).
Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get
it
whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
isn't
just as well as (b) failed attempts.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com
wrote:
> ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? > > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget means > to justify that to the stakeholders. > > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than > previously because the chapters have to find external funds. > > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a > lot). > > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service or > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the
activities,
> resources, targets or deliverables". > > WMF is one stakeholders. > > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are > stakeholders and so on. > > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because WMF > is *one of the stakeholders*. > > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the
strategy
in > order to attract stakeholders. > > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the > risk, the > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder with > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of > the > chapter. > > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest > budget. > > regards > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < darekj@alk.edu.pl> > wrote: > > > Hi Balazs, > > > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion > > of the > FDC > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself,
but
I was > an > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran a > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination > > board for > > > > best, > > > > dariusz "pundit" > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < > > balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > > > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more > > > or less on its maximum I think. > > > > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the closest > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - it is > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a > > > full "business plan" - review) > > > > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global goals, > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you > > > say it > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and > > > inexperienced > > > group of people are handling > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free,
it
works > > > pretty well. > > > > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from > > > such a > > setup. > > > > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the
mistakes
that > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a
dedicated
> > > ombudsperson for the case(s). > > > > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a > > > real > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the > > > "incoherentness" of reviews. > > > > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical changes to > > > the system imo. > > > > > > Balazs > > > > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com: > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to
compare
three > > > years, > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. > > > > > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. > > > > > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC
consider
that > > > Amical > > > > is the best example to follow. > > > > > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than other > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is > > > surrealistic. > > > > > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a strong > > glue > > > > within the community > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = > organization > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external > > > > or > > internal > > > > questions (may be the opposite) > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small > > > > > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. > > > > > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to look > > in > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and to > > check > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German > community > > to > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been > > > > a good > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the > > > > projects. > > > > > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in the > > > > biggest projects. > > > > > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the > diversity > > > and > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the historical > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but there > are > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" editors > > and > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. > > > > > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. > > > > > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the > > > > decreasing is > not > > > > beneficial. > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" sydney.poore@gmail.com > > > > ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > >> Hi Patrik, > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the majority > of > > > the > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to the > > FDC > > > >> for > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic > > > >> planning, > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great
amount
of > room > > > for > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement > > > >> (including the > > WMF.) > > > >> > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the largest > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to > > > >> deliver > impact > > to > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many > > > instances > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to develop > > and > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making recommendations > > > about > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific > > > >> project or > > > program, > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an > > > organizations > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more > complicated > > > >> projects.) > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Warm regards, > > > >> > > > >> Sydney Poore > > > >> User:FloNight > > > >> Member FDC > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > __________________________ > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > > i centrum badawczego CROW > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge?
An > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press)
mojego
> > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > > > Recenzje > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > > Pacific Standard: > > >
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> > Motherboard: > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > > The Wikipedian: > >
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Ilario Valdelli > Wikimedia CH > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario > Skype: valdelli > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > Tel: +41764821371 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.
The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people.
Thanks!
Lodewijk
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Balazs,
if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years".
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián < balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu
wrote:
Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Memb...
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
years
of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
Board,
or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing
funds)
does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
people
with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
balazs.viczian@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking
about
writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they
had
any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference
between
writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
Vince
2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed
for
bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
"initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
Vince
2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the > level > of > really small chapters in our movement. > > I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you > assuming > that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, > community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the > Foundation). > > Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so
your
> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get
it
> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
isn't
> just > as well as (b) failed attempts. > > best, > > dj "pundit" > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <
valdelli@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? > > > > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest
budget
> means > > to justify that to the stakeholders. > > > > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex
than
> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds. > > > > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a > > lot). > > > > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those > > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, > service or > > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the
activities,
> > resources, targets or deliverables". > > > > WMF is one stakeholders. > > > > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the > > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects
are
> > stakeholders and so on. > > > > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter > because WMF > > is *one of the stakeholders*. > > > > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a > decision > > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the
strategy
> in > > order to attract stakeholders. > > > > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the > > risk, > the > > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a
stakeholder
> with > > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy
of
> > the > > chapter. > > > > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of > biggest > > budget. > > > > regards > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > darekj@alk.edu.pl> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Balazs, > > > > > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your
opinion
> > > of > the > > FDC > > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself,
but
> I was > > an > > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants
and
> ran a > > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination > > > board > for > > > > > > best, > > > > > > dariusz "pundit" > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < > > > balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > > > > > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC
is
> more > > > > or less on its maximum I think. > > > > > > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC
(the
> closest > > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant
review -
> it is > > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a > > > > full "business plan" - review) > > > > > > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, > > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances
(global
> goals, > > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you > > > > say > it > > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and > > > > inexperienced > > > > group of people are handling > > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free,
it
> works > > > > pretty well. > > > > > > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from > > > > such > a > > > setup. > > > > > > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the
mistakes
> that > > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a
dedicated
> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s). > > > > > > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are > visibly > > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a > > > > real > > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the > > > > "incoherentness" of reviews. > > > > > > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical > changes to > > > > the system imo. > > > > > > > > Balazs > > > > > > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com: > > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to
compare
> three > > > > years, > > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. > > > > > > > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. > > > > > > > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC
consider
> that > > > > Amical > > > > > is the best example to follow. > > > > > > > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context
than
> other > > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned*
is
> > > > surrealistic. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: > > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language
is a
> strong > > > glue > > > > > within the community > > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = > > organization > > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by
external
> > > > > or > > > internal > > > > > questions (may be the opposite) > > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small > > > > > > > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. > > > > > > > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I
suggest
> to look > > > in > > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German
chapter
> and to > > > check > > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the
German
> > community > > > to > > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have
been
> > > > > a > good > > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the > > > > > projects. > > > > > > > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a
lot
> in the > > > > > biggest projects. > > > > > > > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged
the
> > diversity > > > > and > > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the > historical > > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong
but
> there > > are > > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the
"potential"
> editors > > > and > > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. > > > > > > > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. > > > > > > > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the > > > > > decreasing > is > > not > > > > > beneficial. > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" <
sydney.poore@gmail.com>
> > > > > ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Patrik, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the > majority > > of > > > > the > > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted
requests
> to the > > > FDC > > > > >> for > > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around > strategic > > > > >> planning, > > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great
amount
> of > > room > > > > for > > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement > > > > >> (including > the > > > WMF.) > > > > >> > > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking
the
> largest > > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to > > > > >> deliver > > impact > > > to > > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using.
In
> many > > > > instances > > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity
to
> develop > > > and > > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making > recommendations > > > > about > > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific > > > > >> project > or > > > > program, > > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about
an
> > > > organizations > > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more > > complicated > > > > >> projects.) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Warm regards, > > > > >> > > > > >> Sydney Poore > > > > >> User:FloNight > > > > >> Member FDC > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > __________________________ > > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > > > i centrum badawczego CROW > > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > > > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > > > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge?
> An > > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press)
mojego
> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > > > > > Recenzje > > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > > > Pacific Standard: > > > > > >
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> > > Motherboard: > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > > > The Wikipedian: > > > >
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ilario Valdelli > > Wikimedia CH > > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > > Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario > > Skype: valdelli > > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli > > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli > > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 > > > > > Tel: +41764821371 > > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
> > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > Recenzje > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > Pacific Standard: > >
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > The Wikipedian: >
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ 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
Excellently put Lodewijk.
In an attempt to answer your question: I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds externally.
In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally.
Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets should take more into account those funds.
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
A corollary question is, if a chapter does receive external funding (from whatever source), how should that money be accounted for in the Annual Plan? If it is in a separate budget that is outside FDC-scrutiny that would seem to be a way of avoiding accountability to the movement as a whole... On the other hand, should the FDC have jurisdiction over money that is not derived from the WMF APG program?
It's possible that extensive explanations for these questions exists already and I just didn't know where to find it - sorry if that's the case :-) Also, I'm not asking the FDC to "answer" these questions now (or saying which option I prefer), I'm wanting to know if the WMF Board of Trustees has given clear instructions to the FDC/Chapters in this area.
Sincerely, -Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 25 November 2014 at 18:38, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.
The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people.
Thanks!
Lodewijk
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Excellently put Lodewijk.
In an attempt to answer your question: I would like to ask for clarification the expectations of raising funds externally.
In previous years, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it has been emphasised that the 'money raised in a country' should be considered independent of 'money spent in that country'. This is a principle that everyone (I think) agrees with, on the basis that a country might be donor-poor but activity-rich or vice versa. Taken at its purest, this principle implies that the annual plans submitted should be independent of the amount of money [potentially] available to be accessed locally.
Separately, there is also the fact that several of the responses from the FDC emphasise that some Chapters should push for more external funding sources - to diversify their income streams and to lessen the burden on the global Wikimedia budget. And that these Chapters' Annual Plan budgets should take more into account those funds.
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict.
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations (but not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the FDC is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ 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
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then resulted in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or are they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes two because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and not doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized. Currently it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot is foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the process altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be much better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the chapters can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply equally or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their project to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations
(but
not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the
FDC
is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I have not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances. But, I would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board of Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to dump other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then resulted in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money. However, in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it is supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed in such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their
project
to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations
(but
not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the camera that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe the
FDC
is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I
have
not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances.
But, I
would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board
of
Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle
applies
to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the policies they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner startet there were four income channels. First, Business development, which never gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the 2006 fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved expensive compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from the poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website, and with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have people working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can comfortably handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it
is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed
in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance have developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I know reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their
project
to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get that funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing organisations
(but
not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
camera
that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has been uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed almost a million times and believe our small donors would approve of that use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe
the
FDC
is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I
have
not read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances.
But, I
would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF Board
of
Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this area.
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle
applies
to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact - it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising on the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of the challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
startet
there were four income channels. First, Business development, which
never
gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the
2006
fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from the dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face this today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from
the
poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website,
and
with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a job
or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it
takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising
and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one
pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what it
is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would
be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was changed
in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance
have
developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart and educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I
know
reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their
project
to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get
that
funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
(but
not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
camera
that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has
been
uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
almost a
million times and believe our small donors would approve of that
use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I believe
the
FDC
> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know that I
have
> not > read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter finances.
But, I
> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF
Board
of
> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this
area.
>
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
contradictory?
If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle
applies
to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
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:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which helps with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for grants where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a projected they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters have a possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc. It would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's totally fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of
the
challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all its professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
startet
there were four income channels. First, Business development, which
never
gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of the
2006
fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from
the
dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face
this
today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money from
the
poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the website,
and
with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is an inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a
job
or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it
takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund raising
and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in one
pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not what
it
is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It would
be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for instance
have
developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable in countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart
and
educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India? (I
know
reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
As Nathan I see no contradiction.
I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in their
project
to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to get
that
funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
(but
not for WMF to "get" that money for general use)
But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
camera
that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that has
been
uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
almost a
million times and believe our small donors would approve of that
use
Anders
Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the
FDC
>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know
that I
have
>> not >> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
But, I
>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF
Board
of
>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this
area.
>> > > Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be
contradictory?
> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle
applies
> to > funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised
by
> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 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:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example.
But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way.
So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters
have a
possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc.
It
would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of
the
challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want
to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all
its
professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
startet
there were four income channels. First, Business development, which
never
gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of
the
2006
fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from
the
dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face
this
today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
the
poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
and
with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is
an
inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a
job
or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it
takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in
one
pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of
the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where
the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
have
developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable
in
countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart
and
educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India?
(I
know
reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
> As Nathan I see no contradiction. > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
project
> to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to
get
that
> funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
(but > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use) > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
camera
> that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that
has
been
> uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
almost a
> million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > Anders > > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
wrote: >> >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
>>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the
FDC >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know
that I
have
>>> not >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
But, I
>>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF
Board
of
>>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this
area.
>>> >> >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
applies
>> to >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised
by
>> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 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:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared.
The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be improved there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job. The toolserver was indeed a strong example.
But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must always stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way.
So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to find external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are limitations to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely do my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding.
However,
the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they
do
not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in
hardware
and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes
you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission.
In
the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to
the
Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort
than
you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider
it
unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump
fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that
a
chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters
have a
possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price.
Etc.
It
would just make sense to think if the movement's resources
sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core
of
the
challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc
want
to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all
its
professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
startet
there were four income channels. First, Business development,
which
never
gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a
glorious
conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of
the
2006
fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money
from
the
dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face
this
today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
the
poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
and
with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which
is
an
inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi, > With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
> working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do
a
job
or
are > they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively
it
takes
two > because the skills involved are different. > > I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more
money.
However,
> in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
and
not > doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not
optimized.
Currently > it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in
one
pot
is > foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of
the
process > altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
> handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, > > What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
is
> supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
much > better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in
> such a way that the process became more equal, A process where
the
chapters > can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
have
> developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable
in
> countries like India where there is an abundance of really
smart
and
> educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India?
(I
know
> reasons why not but they are not the point). > > We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
equally > or divide on equal terms. > Thanks, > GerardM > > NB Wikidata is underfunded > > On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se> > wrote: > > > As Nathan I see no contradiction. > > > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
project > > to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to
get
that
> > funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
> (but > > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use) > > > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy
the
camera
> > that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that
has
been
> > uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
almost a
> > million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > > > Anders > > > > > > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
> wrote: > >> > >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and
logical,
however I > >>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the
> FDC > >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know
that I
have > >>> not > >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
But, I > >>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the
WMF
Board
of > >>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in
this
area.
> >>> > >> > >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be > contradictory? > >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
applies > >> to > >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds
raised
by
> >> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
> >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> 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:
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
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
A sidenote: raising funds is probably a better term - fundraising is historically in Wikimedia often used to refer specifically to the small donors. A process which chapters have been barred from unfortunately, and which faces some interesting struggles on the WMF-side right now. But I guess it's bound to be confusing.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared.
The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be
improved
there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job.
The
toolserver was indeed a strong example.
But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must
always
stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way.
So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to
find
external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are
limitations
to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely
do
my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in
fund
raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding.
However,
the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where
they
do
not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is
NOT
considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with
the
move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is
not
good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much
based
on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in
hardware
and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that
empowers
chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there
is
no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes
you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission.
In
the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to
the
Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort
than
you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible:
the
annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds
for a
whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally,
and
when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider
it
unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for
whatever
reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For
this
reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump
fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support
is
available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation
that
a
chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters
have a
possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price.
Etc.
It
would just make sense to think if the movement's resources
sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
> they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core
of
the
> challenge we are facing. > > What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc
want
to
dump > other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with
all
its
> professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue
Gardner
startet
> there were four income channels. First, Business development,
which
never
> gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a
glorious
> conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part
of
the
2006
> fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money
from
the
> dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
> compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which
then
resulted > in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters
face
this
> today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
the
> poor, aka fundraising banners on the website. > > The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
and
> with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which
is
an
> inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies > we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard. > > Rupert > On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you
have
people
> > working professionally the choice is very much: are they to
do
a
job
or
> are > > they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter
effectively
it
takes
> two > > because the skills involved are different. > > > > I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more
money.
However, > > in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
and
> not > > doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not
optimized.
> Currently > > it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go
in
one
pot
> is > > foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out
of
the
> process > > altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
> > handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, > > > > What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
is > > supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
> much > > better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in > > such a way that the process became more equal, A process
where
the
> chapters > > can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
have
> > developers go to the USA while they can live really
comfortable
in
> > countries like India where there is an abundance of really
smart
and
> > educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in
India?
(I
know
> > reasons why not but they are not the point). > > > > We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
> equally > > or divide on equal terms. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > NB Wikidata is underfunded > > > > On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten < > mail@anderswennersten.se> > > wrote: > > > > > As Nathan I see no contradiction. > > > > > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
> project > > > to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy
to
get
that
> > > funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
> > (but > > > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use) > > > > > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy
the
camera > > > that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos
that
has
been
> > > uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been
viewed
almost a
> > > million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > > > > > Anders > > > > > > > > > > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and
logical,
> however I > > >>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the > > FDC > > >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I
know
that I
> have > > >>> not > > >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
> But, I > > >>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the
WMF
Board
> of > > >>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in
this
area.
> > >>> > > >> > > >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be > > contradictory? > > >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
> applies > > >> to > > >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds
raised
by
> > >> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
> > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, When the WMF staff is only involved in advising local fundraising, then the WMF staff is considered superior. The actual situation is that the WMF would do well and expect superior local knowledge and use it for its fundraising. It should compensate the chapters for this. It would do well when chapters get a share of the locally raised funds. BECAUSE it is also a vehicle for raising awareness
The notion that fundraising is apart from how the relations are is very artificial and it results in poor understanding. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 22:29, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, external funding can come in many different forms. Ideally, a not for profit will develop strategic partnerships that will give them access to more volunteers, in kind services and good, and also financial contributions. Good alliances will spark innovation or provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist. We are already seeing this happen in many organizations but it is not always being documented and shared.
The FDC is asking the WMF staff to open a dialogue with the affiliated organization (chapters and thematic organizations) around the area of fundraising in order to learn more about the ways that they can be supported when they do local fundraising. There is much learning that can come from sharing among the different chapters.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Most of the points you make are unrelated to funding, but have more to do with movement priorities. I also think there are many things to be
improved
there. I feel with you that chapters often have a stronger connection to the community and what is required to help the community do their job.
The
toolserver was indeed a strong example.
But that is not the point of discussion - we were talking about external funding an sich. I think it is good if affiliates get their core funded through the WMF - but I disagree that seeking external partners must
always
stifle innovation. I think it could actually spark innovation. I see too many organizations that become reliant on a single source of funding, and become lazy in innovations that way.
So where possible, I definitely do cheer upon chapters that manage to
find
external funding for some of their projects. And yes, there are
limitations
to this - it should not interfere with our creativity. I will definitely
do
my part to support such efforts in the Netherlands. Sometimes external funding can allow us to run projects that might not easily be approved by our committees, because it is 'too expensive'.
Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in
fund
raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding.
However,
the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where
they
do
not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is
NOT
considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with
the
move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is
not
good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much
based
on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in
hardware
and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that
empowers
chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there
is
no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes
you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission.
In
the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to
the
Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort
than
you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible:
the
annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds
for a
whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally,
and
when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider
it
unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for
whatever
reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For
this
reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump
fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support
is
available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation
that
a
chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters
have a
possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price.
Etc.
It
would just make sense to think if the movement's resources
sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
> they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core
of
the
> challenge we are facing. > > What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc
want
to
dump > other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with
all
its
> professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue
Gardner
startet
> there were four income channels. First, Business development,
which
never
> gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a
glorious
> conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part
of
the
2006
> fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money
from
the
> dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
> compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which
then
resulted > in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters
face
this
> today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
the
> poor, aka fundraising banners on the website. > > The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
and
> with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which
is
an
> inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the inefficiencies > we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard. > > Rupert > On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you
have
people
> > working professionally the choice is very much: are they to
do
a
job
or
> are > > they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter
effectively
it
takes
> two > > because the skills involved are different. > > > > I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more
money.
However, > > in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
and
> not > > doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not
optimized.
> Currently > > it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go
in
one
pot
> is > > foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out
of
the
> process > > altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
> > handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons, > > > > What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
is > > supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
> much > > better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in > > such a way that the process became more equal, A process
where
the
> chapters > > can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
have
> > developers go to the USA while they can live really
comfortable
in
> > countries like India where there is an abundance of really
smart
and
> > educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in
India?
(I
know
> > reasons why not but they are not the point). > > > > We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
> equally > > or divide on equal terms. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > NB Wikidata is underfunded > > > > On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten < > mail@anderswennersten.se> > > wrote: > > > > > As Nathan I see no contradiction. > > > > > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
> project > > > to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy
to
get
that
> > > funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
> > (but > > > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use) > > > > > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy
the
camera > > > that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos
that
has
been
> > > uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been
viewed
almost a
> > > million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > > > > > Anders > > > > > > > > > > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and
logical,
> however I > > >>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the > > FDC > > >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I
know
that I
> have > > >>> not > > >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
> But, I > > >>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the
WMF
Board
> of > > >>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in
this
area.
> > >>> > > >> > > >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be > > contradictory? > > >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
> applies > > >> to > > >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds
raised
by
> > >> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
> > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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:
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard, we hear you. On the other hand, we have the example of Wikimedia France, which has recently told us about a highly innovative event that features community outreach, content creation, editing workshop, and sufficient fundraising to pay for itself.
We know that, despite the issues of payment processing, several European chapters have been receiving their national equivalent of Gift Aid for direct donations, and it is worthwhile for others to look into this and see if there are opportunities there. (There might not be, because this is location-specific.) Some countries have government-supported opportunities with relatively lightweight application processes to improve digital content in certain fields, whether photography, literature, or targeted groups. Wikidata would not have come to be without external funding, even though a significant portion of its initial and continued funding is supported by grants directly from the WMF or as part of the FDC recommendations.
At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive.
We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to grantee.
Risker/Anne
On 26 November 2014 at 15:06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are foced into a yearly straight jacket and BECAUSE they forcibly lost their involvement in fund raising. Arguably it makes sense to look for alternative funding. However, the chapters are for their projects dependent on WMF projects where they do not have any control either. All GLAM projects rely on LABS and it is NOT considered a production environment.This is best expressed that with the move of Yuvi Panda to the USA, the availability of LABS personnel will consequently become worse. The quality of the up time of services is not good.
My observation that chapters are second class citizens is very much based on their involvement in critical processes. When the German chapter is denied its funding, Wikidata was cherry picked for full funding. This denies the ownership of the German chapter of this project. Several chapters are independent of WMF funding. They do not answer to "the community" that wants to own them and determine for them. When the Toolserver was ended in favour of Labs, it lost its involvement in hardware and services. This point is NOT about the quality of Labs but about the involvement of chapters. It was removed.and nothing remains that empowers chapters in this.
In discussion we hear about the "community" about committees but there is no sense at all of the chapters as an equal partner.This is imho not healthy for us as a movement. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 19:45, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I don't quite agree.
Raising funds from institutions can sometimes even help improve your
impact
- it forces you to think beyond the usual lines of thought. It makes you
think about further partnerships, which might also help your mission. In the longer run, it makes you less dependent of a single party, which
helps
with answering the constantly changing requirements for reporting to the Wikimedia Foundation (which are often with good intentions, but the constant changes also cost time).
But yes, there are instances where getting a grant costs more effort than you would like. At the same time, it helps you to be more flexible: the annual grants process is quite inflexible, as it limits the funds for a whole year - for the basis this is great, but for innovative projects sometimes external funding is more effective.
Lets not reject the idea of external funding out of hand. There are positive sides and of course also negative sides. Lets first aim for
grants
where the positive sides outweigh the negative sides, also locally, and when the balance goes the other way discuss again.
At the same time, I do feel a need to emphasize that I would consider it unjust if the FDC (If, I don't say it does) would either reduce an affiliate's budget because they don't raise external funds for whatever reason, but equally unjust if they would reduce funding because they already raise so much externally. Both would be wrong.
Best, Lodewijk
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, Fund raising costs money. It affects effectivity negatively. For this reason it is a poor strategy to raise funds. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 November 2014 at 13:16, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Let me reiterate: the FDC definitely DOES NOT try to dump fundraising
on
the chapters.
However, we recognize that sometimes funding or inkind support is available more easily than elsewhere. We once had a situation that a chapter declared they could get external funding easily for a
projected
they applied for to the FDC, but they just didn't. Some chapters
have a
possibility to get office space for free or at a reduced price. Etc.
It
would just make sense to think if the movement's resources sparingly.
If funds are not available, or if one tries and fails - that's
totally
fine.
Best
Dj 26 lis 2014 09:42 "rupert THURNER" rupert.thurner@gmail.com
napisał(a):
While I understand the arguments of the fdc in the light of the
policies
they are bound to, what you Gerard write , really hits the core of
the
challenge we are facing.
What I find the most hypocritical is that the wmf and the fdc want
to
dump
other organizations into fundraising adventures the wmf with all
its
professionalism tried and found unsatisfactory. when sue Gardner
startet
there were four income channels. First, Business development, which
never
gave income. Second, get money from the rich, which gave a glorious conflict of interest discussion e.g. when virgin doubled part of
the
2006
fundraiser. I never heard of this one again. Third, get money from
the
dead aka applying for grants to other foundations. This proved
expensive
compared to the result, mostly giving restricted funds which then
resulted
in problems with reporting the success. Many of the chapters face
this
today. And fourth, as now only remaining cornerstone, get money
from
the
poor, aka fundraising banners on the website.
The wmf today plays two roles, spending money and owning the
website,
and
with it deriving the single right to collect money of it. Which is
an
inherent conflict of interest imo responsible for 99% of the
inefficiencies
we have today, including the local focus brought up by Gerard.
Rupert On Nov 26, 2014 8:05 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, With all respect, these are pennies to the pound. When you have
people
working professionally the choice is very much: are they to do a
job
or
are
they to raise funds and do a job. To do the latter effectively it
takes
two
because the skills involved are different.
I completely agree that it is possible to raise much more money.
However,
in the current model where the foundation monopolised fund
raising
and
not
doing the best possible job the amounts raised are not optimized.
Currently
it is not needed. The notion that all money raised should go in
one
pot
is
foolish because the reality is that several chapter opt out of
the
process
altogether. Several of these make more money than they can
comfortably
handle BUT cannot share for legal reasons,
What we have is a political correct monstrosity that does not
what
it
is
supposed to do under the notions of political correctness. It
would
be
much
better when the whole process of fundraising and spending was
changed
in
such a way that the process became more equal, A process where
the
chapters
can more easily take up jobs they are suited for. Why for
instance
have
developers go to the USA while they can live really comfortable
in
countries like India where there is an abundance of really smart
and
educated people ? Why not have technical projects run in India?
(I
know
reasons why not but they are not the point).
We do not have metrics for many jobs. What we have we do not
apply
equally
or divide on equal terms. Thanks, GerardM
NB Wikidata is underfunded
On 25 November 2014 at 21:25, Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
> As Nathan I see no contradiction. > > I would feel embarrassed if WMSE had used FDC funding in
their
project
> to get more female contributes. Also as it is rather easy to
get
that
> funded from within Sweden and semi-government financing
organisations
(but > not for WMF to "get" that money for general use) > > But I feel quite comfortable that FDC money was used to buy the
camera
> that was used by a volunteer in ESC 2013 to take photos that
has
been
> uploaded to Commons and used in 60+ versions and been viewed
almost a
> million times and believe our small donors would approve of
that
use
> > Anders > > > > Nathan skrev den 2014-11-25 20:45: > >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Liam Wyatt <
liamwyatt@gmail.com>
wrote: >> >> Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical,
however I
>>> believe that they are at least partially contradictory. I
believe
the
FDC >>> is working on the best advice it has available, and I know
that I
have
>>> not >>> read *all *the most recent documentation about Chapter
finances.
But, I
>>> would like to know if there is a policy position from the WMF
Board
of
>>> Trustees that clarifies what is expected of Chapters in this
area.
>>> >> >> Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? >> If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first
principle
applies
>> to >> funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised
by
>> individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in
conflict.
>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 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:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Well, I would say that probably the chapters are looking for external funds not because WMF is suggesting to do it, but probably because it's too much hard to follow the interpretations of the FDC.
Every year that a chapter applies for a FDC grant is like to go to the sybil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl) because even if the plan has been adapted to the last strategies of WMF, it's difficult to define what will be the *new* interpretation of the FDC.
It's not a bad solution to find external funds, but it's critical when the percentage of this external funding is relatively large. Speaking about a trendy word: the impact in a chapter is substantial.
As soon the chapters will fund externally for a relevant percentage of their budget, it means that the main strategy of the chapters will follow what the donors (big or small donors) will ask. So the workload is not only to find finds but also to manage stakeholders.
Yes, this will reduce the risks... but the risks of the variability of the FDC answer!
Now we come back to the main question:
a) it's an usual answer that a no profit association that would fund their own organization may do a fundraising targeting on small donors, but it means that the initial funds will be spent to fund the next fundraising campaign, in general it is suggested that the first years are spent only to finance the next fundraising. In addition I would add that it's really stupid to be concurrent of WMF in the main fields where WMF collects its funds b) a second solution is to look for big sponsors and for charitable foundations, but it means a lot of time to acquire the reliance of these entities and in addition these foundations or donors will impose their own constraints, its' really difficult that they will open the wallet only because someone is named Wikimedia X c) there are also call for projets done by local governements but it means anyway a big workload to follow the selections and to find partners and so on
So I am not saying that it's worst to look for external funds but that: a) it cannot be done in few months (to be a serious external fundraising) b) it makes sense to do it if this will be the strategy for the following years because *any change costs*
Yes, there are a lot of opportunities and in my specific case I would say that Switzerland offers good opportunities also to fund projects outside Switzerland because the legal system in Switzerland is designed for *international* projects. The problem is to change the priorities and to spent the following months to look for funds.
Probably all members of the FDC are too young (as wikimedians) to remember that the principle of WMF two or three years ago was to focus the organization of the chapters in the community support and in the projects. This is a resume of what was said by the board of trusteee in wikimedia conference in Berlin in the 2012 about the request of chapters to be payment processors (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2012/Documentation/Day_...).
Personally I find the suggestions of the FDC in conflict with what was said two years ago.
The question is to define clearly a strategy for the following years because in any of these three cases a longtime strategy is required in order to find a good fundraising solution.
It means that next years the FDC *cannot* evaluate the work of the chapters with the current parameters and measures because it's not honest to ask for a re-arrangement of the priorities, and to ask that the chapters will have in charge the risks and the costs of this change and in addition that they have also to be evaluated with an outdated system of evaluation (in comparison with the current suggestions of the FDC).
I agree that the Global South may have some difficulties to raise funds locally, but I disagree that the evaluation of a project done in the Global South can have the same evaluation of a project done in the Global North which is financed with external funds.
Regards
On 26.11.2014 22:01, Risker wrote:
At the same time, although I believe that chapters (especially those with budgets in the FDC range) should at least be able to demonstrate that they've investigated opportunities, I also am aware that in many regions the opportunities might be very limited, or could require completion of highly complex documentation with only a small chance of success. (Anyone thinking that the FDC asks for a lot of documentation has never completed the paperwork for a typical research grant.) But chapters are the organizations best placed to research and analyse their own local fundraising opportunities, and to figure out which ones are worth pursuing from both a financial and programmatic point of view. Fundraising can, indeed, be expensive.
We do have to keep in mind that this is a big, global movement, the available financial resources are *not* unlimited (contrary to popular belief), and that there has to be some sort of evidence that the money being distributed in large grants is generating demonstrated results within the movement. The nature of those results will vary from grantee to grantee.
Risker/Anne
Supporting individual English teachers in rural Poland and reviewing hundred thousand to million dollar grants from all around the World are barely comparable to each other if they can be at all, but definitely can be counted as relevant experience. Anyways I meant to give an overall positive critic,
I am sorry that you focused on the negative parts only and took it personal, it was never my intention.
Vince
2014-11-25 18:38 GMT+01:00, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org:
I don't think it is very helpful to the discussions that have to be had to turn this into a conversation about personal qualifications... Only rarely I have seen such a discussion to bear fruit.
The people on the Committee is only a small factor in the whole puzzle - the instructions they get, the process and the number of applications has at least a similar impact. Let us first discuss what (if anything) should be different in the process, in the outcomes, before we even start discussing the people.
Thanks!
Lodewijk
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Balazs,
if you read the link you've just provided, you'd probably notice e.g. the following sentence: "He also has served on the Funds Dissemination Committee of the "English Teaching" program (aimed at improving language skills of English teachers in rural areas of Poland) coordinated by Fundacja Nida from the funds of Polish-American Freedom Foundation over the last 8+ years".
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Balázs Viczián < balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu
wrote:
Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Memb...
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8
years
of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center
Board,
or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing
funds)
does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need
people
with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <
balazs.viczian@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking
about
writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they
had
any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference
between
writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
Vince
2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed
for
bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@gmail.com > wrote:
> Hi, > > "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its > preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was > misunderstandable. > > Vince > > 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl: > >> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the >> level >> of >> really small chapters in our movement. >> >> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you >> assuming >> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, >> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the >> Foundation). >> >> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so
your
>> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to >> get
it
>> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it
isn't
>> just >> as well as (b) failed attempts. >> >> best, >> >> dj "pundit" >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <
valdelli@gmail.com
>> wrote: >> >> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? >> > >> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest
budget
>> means >> > to justify that to the stakeholders. >> > >> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex
than
>> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds. >> > >> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a >> > lot). >> > >> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: >> > "those >> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, >> service or >> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the
activities,
>> > resources, targets or deliverables". >> > >> > WMF is one stakeholders. >> > >> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of >> > the >> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects
are
>> > stakeholders and so on. >> > >> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter >> because WMF >> > is *one of the stakeholders*. >> > >> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a >> decision >> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the
strategy
>> in >> > order to attract stakeholders. >> > >> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the >> > risk, >> the >> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a
stakeholder
>> with >> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy
of
>> > the >> > chapter. >> > >> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of >> biggest >> > budget. >> > >> > regards >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < >> darekj@alk.edu.pl> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Balazs, >> > > >> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your
opinion
>> > > of >> the >> > FDC >> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for >> > > myself,
but
>> I was >> > an >> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants
and
>> ran a >> > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination >> > > board >> for >> > > >> > > best, >> > > >> > > dariusz "pundit" >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < >> > > balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu> wrote: >> > > >> > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, >> > > > FDC
is
>> more >> > > > or less on its maximum I think. >> > > > >> > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC
(the
>> closest >> > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant
review -
>> it is >> > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a >> > > > full "business plan" - review) >> > > > >> > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its >> > > > members, >> > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances
(global
>> goals, >> > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if >> > > > you >> > > > say >> it >> > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and >> > > > inexperienced >> > > > group of people are handling >> > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for >> > > > free,
it
>> works >> > > > pretty well. >> > > > >> > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection >> > > > from >> > > > such >> a >> > > setup. >> > > > >> > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the
mistakes
>> that >> > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a
dedicated
>> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s). >> > > > >> > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are >> visibly >> > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is >> > > > a >> > > > real >> > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the >> > > > "incoherentness" of reviews. >> > > > >> > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical >> changes to >> > > > the system imo. >> > > > >> > > > Balazs >> > > > >> > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com: >> > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to
compare
>> three >> > > > years, >> > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. >> > > > > >> > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. >> > > > > >> > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC
consider
>> that >> > > > Amical >> > > > > is the best example to follow. >> > > > > >> > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context
than
>> other >> > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be >> > > > > *cloned*
is
>> > > > surrealistic. >> > > > > >> > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: >> > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language
is a
>> strong >> > > glue >> > > > > within the community >> > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects >> > > > > = >> > organization >> > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by
external
>> > > > > or >> > > internal >> > > > > questions (may be the opposite) >> > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively >> > > > > small >> > > > > >> > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia >> > > > > Israel. >> > > > > >> > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I
suggest
>> to look >> > > in >> > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German
chapter
>> and to >> > > check >> > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the
German
>> > community >> > > to >> > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have
been
>> > > > > a >> good >> > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the >> > > > > projects. >> > > > > >> > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a
lot
>> in the >> > > > > biggest projects. >> > > > > >> > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged
the
>> > diversity >> > > > and >> > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the >> historical >> > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong
but
>> there >> > are >> > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the
"potential"
>> editors >> > > and >> > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. >> > > > > >> > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. >> > > > > >> > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the >> > > > > decreasing >> is >> > not >> > > > > beneficial. >> > > > > >> > > > > regards >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" <
sydney.poore@gmail.com>
>> > > > > ha >> > > scritto: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Patrik, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, >> > > > >> the >> majority >> > of >> > > > the >> > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted
requests
>> to the >> > > FDC >> > > > >> for >> > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around >> strategic >> > > > >> planning, >> > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great
amount
>> of >> > room >> > > > for >> > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement >> > > > >> (including >> the >> > > WMF.) >> > > > >> >> > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking
the
>> largest >> > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to >> > > > >> deliver >> > impact >> > > to >> > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using.
In
>> many >> > > > instances >> > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall >> > > > >> capacity
to
>> develop >> > > and >> > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making >> recommendations >> > > > about >> > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific >> > > > >> project >> or >> > > > program, >> > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns >> > > > >> about
an
>> > > > organizations >> > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do >> > > > >> more >> > complicated >> > > > >> projects.) >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Warm regards, >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Sydney Poore >> > > > >> User:FloNight >> > > > >> Member FDC >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > 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> >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > __________________________ >> > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >> > > i centrum badawczego CROW >> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >> > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >> > > >> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >> > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >> > > >> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge?
>> An >> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press)
mojego
>> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >> > > >> > > Recenzje >> > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >> > > Pacific Standard: >> > > >> > >>
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>> > > Motherboard: >> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >> > > The Wikipedian: >> > > >>
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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> >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Ilario Valdelli >> > Wikimedia CH >> > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens >> > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre >> > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera >> > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich >> > Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario >> > Skype: valdelli >> > Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli >> > Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli >> > Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli < >> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 >> > > >> > Tel: +41764821371 >> > http://www.wikimedia.ch >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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>
>> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> __________________________ >> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >> i centrum badawczego CROW >> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >> >> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >> >> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common >> Knowledge?
An
>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) >> mojego >> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >> >> Recenzje >> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >> Pacific Standard: >> >>
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>> Motherboard: >> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >> The Wikipedian: >>
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>> _______________________________________________ >> 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>
>> > >
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ 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
Liam,
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory
I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their applications to the FDC should not be assessed by taking into account their fundraising abilities?
In principle, this is so. While the FDC does suggest to some chapters that they could intensify their efforts in diversifying funds (for the benefit of the whole movement), it is a soft recommendation. None of the chapters had their recommended allocation lowered mainly because of poor fundraising results. I guess it is a matter of reasonable effort - if there sometimes seems to be a low hanging fruit, it is reasonable to ask if it can be reached.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu
wrote:
Supporting individual English teachers in rural Poland and reviewing hundred thousand to million dollar grants from all around the World are barely comparable to each other if they can be at all, but definitely can be counted as relevant experience. Anyways I meant to give an overall positive critic,
and I apologize for upkeeping this thread, it was silly. Thus I am not
going to continue with budgetary details, or reply to this final comment :)
On 25 November 2014 at 20:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate just a little on how you find them to be contradictory? If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the first principle applies to funds raised by WMF and the second is directed at funds raised by individual affiliates, they don't seem to me to be in conflict.
Hi Nathan, I know I'm not being particularly clear - even to myself :-) But let me try:
In particular, I noted this sentence from the FDC recommendations for WM-Netherlands:
"The FDC recognizes that there has been inconsistency in the messages given to chapters and other entities about fundraising diversity. Nonetheless, the FDC thinks that Wikimedia Nederland is in a position to seek other sources of funding. " https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
I also note this sentence which is directed to WM-UK:
"The FDC urges Wikimedia UK to carefully consider its plans to hire additional fundraising staff, and to articulate a clear strategy for how that position will benefit the organization and the movement." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources, not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course these points are linked if the WMF-derived money is being used to pay staff who will focus on external fundraising...)
This is not a critique of the FDC, but it leaves me a bit confused about the 'rules of the game' about external funding, for organisations applying for APG funds.
On 25 November 2014 at 21:53, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
Liam,
Both of these policies are internally consistent and logical, however I believe that they are at least partially contradictory
I understand that the potential contradiction relies on the fact that if fundraising and spending of chapters are really fully separated, their applications to the FDC should not be assessed by taking into account their fundraising abilities?
In principle, this is so. While the FDC does suggest to some chapters that they could intensify their efforts in diversifying funds (for the benefit of the whole movement), it is a soft recommendation. None of the chapters had their recommended allocation lowered mainly because of poor fundraising results. I guess it is a matter of reasonable effort - if there sometimes seems to be a low hanging fruit, it is reasonable to ask if it can be reached.
Thank you Dariusz - yes, this is a good way of summarising it.
-Liam
2014-11-25 18:09 GMT-03:00 Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com:
These points imply to me that the the FDC believes it has a duty to oversee the manner in which funds are raised by the Chapters from external sources, not just how the money that is requested from the WMF is used. (of course these points are linked if the WMF-derived money is being used to pay staff who will focus on external fundraising...)
This is not a critique of the FDC, but it leaves me a bit confused about the 'rules of the game' about external funding, for organisations applying for APG funds.
I personally do not think the FDC has a duty to oversee external funding made by chapters in general, but obviously is something we should analyze in the case of those chapters applying to APG. As it has been said in this thread, APGs are unrestricted funds and, in all cases (with the exception of WMDE), are the largest source of funds for the grantees, so it is important for the FDC to see how the proposed budget will be funded besides APG and see if this is a realistic and correct proposal. Given external funds usually are not 100% secured, there is a possibility that the chapter will have to rearrange their programs, cutting some of those to fund more important ones in case an external source is missed, using for example the unrestricted funds from the APG. That is one reason why we want to see in general the way the chapter works and not only the programs expected to be funded by APG funds.
In addition, not all chapters really described the way each program was supposed to be funded and what could happen if external funding does not work as it was supposed to. Some exceptions were WM-EE and WM-SE; they were very clear regarding this and their budgets gave us a lot of detail, helping us a lot to understand their proposal.[1]
Besides this, it is important for grantees to understand that the growth they had experienced in the past years is not sustainable entirely by APGs, especially in the case of the largest chapters. We expect that as a chapter grows, it can build capacity to search for more funds, be more efficient on their expenditure and in general reduce its reliance on movement funds.
Funding staff for fundraising is possible through APG if the grantee can give a good reasoning for this (as with any other staff increase). I would expect chapters to start working on this with their current staff and propose a dedicated member once there are real possibilities for external funding. In some countries, there will be very few opportunities for funds and the investment on a fundraising staff member may not be positive. At the end, it will all depend on the context.
I hope this explanation helps :)
[1] For example, see WM-EE budget: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Eesti/Annual_budgets/2015
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org