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(a)gmail.com> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)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. > >

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 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 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.

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,