Dear all,
At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director.
This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
Best Bishakha
Great news - I propose a heading for the Signpost "Board unanimously agreed to the Executive Director proposal that Wikimedia movement fends for itself".
Victoria
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Dear all,
At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director.
This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Thanks Bishakha,
while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing.
The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered.
I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
Dear all,
At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director.
This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
As a newly appointed secretary of FDC and just back from San Francisco after a four days deliberation session, where these thing has been in focus I can give you some facts from what I have understood.
The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support.
The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase.
The narrowed focus in practice means that The WMF part funded through FDC is changed in composition, so less in direct activities by WMF personnel and more money in Grants to be allocated to chapters and individuals.
The narrowed focus is only a issue for WMFs internal budget. The planned funds dissemination to chapters is not effected and the actual result of the the implementation of the Narrowed focus is that more money will be used by community/chapters via grant then was earlier planned
Anders Wennersten
Lodewijk skrev 2012-11-02 12:05:
Thanks Bishakha,
while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing.
The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF. I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered.
I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus. I sincerely hope the opposite will be true - and that more effort will be put in enabling these organizations to take over tasks where possible and take on new initiatives as much as possible. As long as the Chapters Association is not active (it seems to me it will be another year before it will be fully functional) I think it would be a waste to reduce this enabling capacity (for example the great networking function that is being provided by Asaf - but he could use some help!) while there is no other organization yet to take over those functions. Could you elaborate a bit on this?
Best, Lodewijk
2012/11/2 Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
Dear all,
At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director.
This vote has been published at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot.
Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget -> stronger evaluation and stronger measures.
An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget -> weak evaluation and flexible measures.
Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD).
The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more money.
Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a "flexible" system of evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF.
My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities.
This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is not a "proportionate" control.
I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones.
To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it will lose the capacity to react to the changes.
I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be "flexible".
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se
wrote:
The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support.
The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase.
the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot.
This must be a misunderstanding. There is now just two weeks until the FDC recommendation for the 12 proposals for round 1 2012 will be official where you can judge yourself
Anders W
Ilario Valdelli skrev 2012-11-02 17:14:
In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot.
Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget -> stronger evaluation and stronger measures.
An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget -> weak evaluation and flexible measures.
Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD).
The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more money.
Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a "flexible" system of evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF.
My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities.
This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is not a "proportionate" control.
I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones.
To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it will lose the capacity to react to the changes.
I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be "flexible".
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se
wrote: The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support.
The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase.
Yes, there is a misunderstandings.
I am not speaking about how the FDC committee is judging, but about the overall process which is the same for an organization asking 30 MUSD and an organization asking 100K USD.
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.sewrote:
the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot.
This must be a misunderstanding. There is now just two weeks until the FDC recommendation for the 12 proposals for round 1 2012 will be official where you can judge yourself
Anders W
Ilario Valdelli skrev 2012-11-02 17:14:
In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange
to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to spend a lot.
Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget -> stronger evaluation and stronger measures.
An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget -> weak evaluation and flexible measures.
Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD).
The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more money.
Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a "flexible" system of evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF.
My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities.
This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is not a "proportionate" control.
I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones.
To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it will lose the capacity to react to the changes.
I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be "flexible".
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten < mail@anderswennersten.se
wrote: The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3 MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering and thing like fundraising support.
The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big part. The total of 11,4 is an increase.
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big budget -> stronger evaluation and stronger measures.
An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget -> weak evaluation and flexible measures.
Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects (total = 1 million of USD).
This would only make sense to me if the organization spending $500k is spending its own money. In this case, it's spending money donated to the WMF; that means it is subject to the level of scrutiny applied to the WMF, even if that money is spent on its behalf instead of by it.
~Nathan
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Thanks Bishakha,
while I can understand the move of the WMF to do what they are best at, for me it is always a bit confusing when the Board (or Sue) is talking about the Foundation, and when about the movement. I hope I'm correct in my assumption that this narrowed focus is mostly a Foundation thing.
Yes, this narrowed focus relates to Foundation programs.
I do hope that freeing up these resources does mean that chapters and other groups will be supported more in taking over these tasks and where necessary, a transition process is considered.
As I see it, the intention of re-allocating or re-prioritizing resources
(rather than freeing it up) is to make it easier for the Foundation to focus on two key priorities: engineering and grantmaking, and to move towards more impactful execution of each.
I don't think the re-prioritization can be seen either as supporting or not supporting other groups to take over these tasks; many of these decisions are upto other groups themselves. For instance, there is scope for chapters to fund fellowships, but that is a decision that each chapter needs to make for itself.
A narrower focus by the Foundation does leave room for other community entities to step up, but whether they do so or not is also dependent on each entity's annual plans, its vision, and how it sees its own role in the movement now and going forward in the future. As slides 13 and 16 say, there is scope to support the growth and build the eco-system of entities via the grants process.
Best Bishakha
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
The question I am missing in this analysis (but perhaps it was discussed orally) is 'which organization/group/individual is best placed to execute this' and then I definitely agree that many events etc are probably better executed at a chapter level than by the WMF.
\o/
I really like this part of the strategy. I'd love to see more small hackathons around the world organized by chapters and attended by smaller groups of WMF staff along with volunteers and chapters staff.
I do have one more specific question. In discussions previously on meta, there were some insinuations (maybe only my interpretation) that the organizational support (so not just money) for chapters and other affiliated groups would be reduced as a consequence of this narrowed focus.
I can speak mostly for the tech side, where our general approach is to try to ensure that we've got scalable review/integration processes that advance as much trust and autonomy to other individuals and organizations as reasonably possible. For example I think WMF needs to make sure that Labs runs smoothly, and can be used to build tools from start to the finish line. We may then still have to help pushing it over the last few inches, but most of the work should not require our help.
Similarly we're continually expanding the "circle of trust" for folks who can review and merge code. We're a bit more conservative with the final "deployment" button push, but we're pretty close to letting anyone with the right talents and inclinations push code into production.
Where WMF really is the only older of certain expertise, we try to provided it when needed, but we should also make a continuing effort to reduce expertise bottlenecks. The changes in this regard over the last 2 years have been huge -- more of our infrastructure than ever is now versioned as code and testable in Labs.
Erik
Bishakha Datta wrote:
At its in-person meeting on 26 October, the board unanimously agreed to accept the recommendation to narrow focus as presented by the Executive Director.
This vote has been published at: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
It would be nice if someone could export the linked presentation from Google Docs and upload it to wikimediafoundation.org (or Wikimedia Commons) as a PDF or ODP (or both). I don't think we should rely on external resources in the context of historical Board archives unless absolutely necessary.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It would be nice if someone could export the linked presentation from Google Docs and upload it to wikimediafoundation.org (or Wikimedia Commons) as a PDF or ODP (or both). I don't think we should rely on external resources in the context of historical Board archives unless absolutely necessary.
Taken your feedback and done the needful,
Bishakha
Bishakha Datta wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It would be nice if someone could export the linked presentation from Google Docs and upload it to wikimediafoundation.org (or Wikimedia Commons) as a PDF or ODP (or both). I don't think we should rely on external resources in the context of historical Board archives unless absolutely necessary.
Taken your feedback and done the needful,
You're wonderful. Thank you very much. :-)
MZMcBride
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org