Craig, Patrik,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the rationale is not clear, is that entities may start to inflate their requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the FDC, thus leaving them with the figure that they *really *want. If the rationale is clearly explained, this will probably be less of a factor.
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds. In the case of WMDE, I think we did make it abundantly clear that Wikidata is an excellent project that should receive more funding. It would also be really valuable if the Board considered multi-year funding for this particular project separately.
While we strive to be as detailed as possible in our recommendations, I hope it is understandable that there is a difference in detail of reasoning for a budget requested on the one hand, and for a recommended amount on the other. For starters, as a committee, we may differ initially in recommended allocations - it is the end result that is a consensus we worked out, basing on different rationales. We have used many approaches and lenses to see this (expense-side, project-side, staff-side, diversification of other funding-side, etc.), but ultimately, our belief was that WMDE may need to reflect on their role in the movement and how it spends the movement's resources. Also, our recommendation was based on the quality of proposals (judged comparatively, taking the amounts into account). Finally, we did have to reflect on the fact that the total amounts of requests exceeded our overall budget (but this consideration was not driving our decisionmaking, we in fact were discussing a possibility of recommending budget increase, if all projects were outstanding).
Nemo: absolutely no hostility meant towards technological decentralization! Speaking only for myself, I believe that the more our movement is relying on various resources (including technologies) the better.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik
hi,
I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
Please, observe that we did recommend Wikidata to be fully sustained.
Also, remember, that all appeals are not going to the FDC at all - we will not have ANY opportunity to argue one way or another in case of all appeals. The Board will consider them, and will base not only on our recommendations, but also on the notes from confidential proceedings of the FDC committee (two Board members are non-voting observers). There is also an ombudsperson overseeing the whole process formally.
In any case, I understand that it would be more desirable to see every dollar cut connected to one item of our feedback. I am not certain, though, if we will be able to do so in the future in all cases (but we may try, when possible).
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik
Hi Dariusz,
thanks for the quick response.
On 23 November 2014 at 14:52, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
I'll comment on that at the end of my email.
Please, observe that we did recommend Wikidata to be fully sustained.
Just to be clear -- I am not affiliated with WMDE. I've kept out of chapter-related issues since I started contributing to the Wikimedia projects in 2007, and I do not feel a need to change that. So when I'm exemplifying a point here with the German chapter's proposal, that is not due to my desire to argue their case, but I'm weighing in because I truly believe that the process itself should be reflected. The fact that you recommend to secure funding for Wikidata is therefore of relevance to the German chapter, but not really something that matters to the case I'm arguing.
Also, remember, that all appeals are not going to the FDC at all - we will
not have ANY opportunity to argue one way or another in case of all appeals. The Board will consider them, and will base not only on our recommendations, but also on the notes from confidential proceedings of the FDC committee (two Board members are non-voting observers). There is also an ombudsperson overseeing the whole process formally.
Ok. What I mean is that you can't make a substantiated complaint about the FDC's allocation if the Committee doesn't indicate how it arrived at that figure.
In any case, I understand that it would be more desirable to see every
dollar cut connected to one item of our feedback. I am not certain, though, if we will be able to do so in the future in all cases (but we may try, when possible).
I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
Patrik
I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.). After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high eventually.
dariusz "pundit"
Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is roughly equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project, which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view on the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to 10 other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.
I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just have doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design fosters budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the process (which, of course, is what matters).
Patrik
On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.). After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high eventually.
dariusz "pundit" _______________________________________________ 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
well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down.
So I believe that the model of decision-making is directly related to the fact that chapters receive unrestricted funding anyway. There are many layers of accountability, but indeed a bystander cannot exactly pit each dollar cut to a particular argument - we only give reasonably detailed feedback to organizations as a whole, since the total allocation is, again, unrestricted.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is roughly equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project, which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view on the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to 10 other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.
I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just have doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design fosters budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the process (which, of course, is what matters).
Patrik
On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.). After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high eventually.
dariusz "pundit" _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down.
sure, I understand this, but I'm sure that you and the other members are making such demands anyway (internally); my suggestion is to make that a part of the deliberation process of the entire committee, and then put a price tag to individual concerns. The chapter can still make its own decisions about how to spend their money, but at least it facilitates both the affected chapter's and the public's understanding of what's going on.
One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing grants programs of the WMF, right?
Cheers, Patrik
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing grants programs of the WMF, right?
I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme per
se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target best projects and guarantee their undisturbed financing. This can definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure), we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small, mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be scratched.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
best,
dj
Hoi, Ever heard of "cherry picking" and of independent organisations ? If I were to be dependent on this process I would hate it SOOO much. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 November 2014 at 23:30, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other
chapters
as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the
FDC
process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the
FDC
or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously
if
one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this
gives
the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing grants programs of the WMF, right?
I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme
per se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target best projects and guarantee their undisturbed financing. This can definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure), we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small, mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be scratched.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
best,
dj _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Patrik,
(I'm speaking for myself as a member of the FDC, not as a spokesperson for the whole committee.)
A large part of the reason that the FDC was created was to have an international group of volunteers do the work of helping the organizations in the wikimedia family do a better job around strategic planning, governance practices, and creating and executing budgeted activities that bring impact to the wikimedia movement locally and globally.
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.)
In some instance we gave general comments about some funds. For example, the FDC commented on the Wikimedia Deutschland’s Volunteer Support program, with an estimated cost of € 710,000 ($880,000 USD) for next year which was larger than any other single proposal made to the FDC. Reiterate that I'm speaking for myself not the whole FDC, I think that Wikimedia Deutschland did not make a stronger justification to the whole wikimedia movement about why that this high level of funding should be dissemination to the wikimedia movement through this program. Because we are making a recommendation about unrestricted funds, this type of evaluation and revamping needs to come from inside Wikimedia Deutschland.
Patrik, you are asking good questions and making insightful comments, so I encourage you to join the larger discussion about the way that the wikimedia movement funds the work of volunteers and organizations. Look out for announcements about community discussion around strategic planning and wikimedia movement grants and join in!.
Warm regards,
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Member FDC
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:21 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 18:05, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down.
sure, I understand this, but I'm sure that you and the other members are making such demands anyway (internally); my suggestion is to make that a part of the deliberation process of the entire committee, and then put a price tag to individual concerns. The chapter can still make its own decisions about how to spend their money, but at least it facilitates both the affected chapter's and the public's understanding of what's going on.
One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other chapters as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the FDC process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the FDC or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously if one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this gives the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing grants programs of the WMF, right?
Cheers, Patrik _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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 Nida Foundation for over 10 years (smaller amounts, but many more projects each round); also for some years I was on the funds board for Interkl@sa program at American-Polish Freedom Foundation. I am currently an advisory board member for the largest scientific center in Poland (and besides regular advisory board duties, consult them on innovation management and strategy). I have experience in consulting on strategy to other NGOs and businesses. I also regularly teach strategic management to MBAs end execs, including programs specifically profiled towards IT and the Internet business. Of course you can always say that it would be better to have someone with more experience, but I believe the principle was that we also need people from within the movement, and able to make a significant time commitment. In any case, I find the statement about little or zero experience seriously unfounded.
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
~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
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
2014-11-25 13:49 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
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.
That's a very good point. but we can rely that entities stay true on their bylaws that, having been examined as part of the affiliation process should all point towards the movement mission (in their own contextualized wa). In other words this is when AffComm work kicks in (in the long term).
C
Probably it has not been considered that the general assembly of a chapter is still a stakeholder.
In this case, for a better access to external funds, several chapters may evaluate if it makes sense to move their legal status from a no profit association to a foundation where the old no profit association may continue to be a simple stakeholder.
In this case there will be nonsense to continue to have a general assembly and probably neither a bylaws.
regards
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-25 13:49 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
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.
That's a very good point. but we can rely that entities stay true on their bylaws that, having been examined as part of the affiliation process should all point towards the movement mission (in their own contextualized wa). In other words this is when AffComm work kicks in (in the long term).
C
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
2014-11-25 12:05 GMT+01:00 Balázs Viczián balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu:
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.
I must admit that I am little sad to say that the FDC is not that special but what we are doing is called "participatory grantmaking" and it's hardly new. Participatory grantmaking is a practice that has been around for a while now (since the 1970s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_grantmaking
Of course, not all of us have the astounding background of Dariusz ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (cit.)) but that's acceptable in the framework of participatory grantmaking.
We are also participating with all the other WMF committees volunteers (IEG, GAC) in a research program from Lafayette Practice (http://www.thelafayettepractice.com/), I think that Anasuya Sengupta [WMF's Director of Grantmaking[*]] can give more info about this if needed.
Of course any feedback is appreciated and process feedback even more.
On a somewhat related note, I want also to take the occasion to point out that WMF said that they will devise a community review process for their annual plan. This mechanism has still to be devised, it will probably not be the FDC[+].
C [*] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grantmaking_and_Programs [+] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Adv...
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).
It’s worth noting that the ombudsperson role has existed since the start of the FDC - the role is there to receive, investigate and document complaints about the FDC process, see: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Omb... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Ombudsperson_role,_expectations,_and_selection_process for details. The appeals to the board process has also existed from the start. Neither are new processes that have been started since the creation of the FDC, as your comment implies.
Thanks, Mike
In my opinion you are under-evaluating the impact of your so-called "advices".
It's sufficient to compare the leaving of employees in chapters staff after and before these advices.
Regards
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down.
So I believe that the model of decision-making is directly related to the fact that chapters receive unrestricted funding anyway. There are many layers of accountability, but indeed a bystander cannot exactly pit each dollar cut to a particular argument - we only give reasonably detailed feedback to organizations as a whole, since the total allocation is, again, unrestricted.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and
then
go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is
roughly
equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project, which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view
on
the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to
10
other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount.
I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just
have
doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design
fosters
budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the process (which, of course, is what matters).
Patrik
On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss
indiviual
aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation.
Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see
the
results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation,
etc.).
After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We
repeat
this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may
be
need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we
know
that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high eventually.
dariusz "pundit" _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
2014-11-23 14:52 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
Pajz, in addition to what Dariusz said please also note that, for example in case of Wikimedia Serbia that presented a very detailed budget this was exactly what was done (but I would rather consider this to be an exception, see below).
In general, I would like to point out that single-line cuts in budgets pose other kinds of problems, e.g. difficulty to evaluate the precise amount taking in consideration the context (then risking to be forced to say either "keep this" or "reject"), and also the autonomy of the organisation (if you transform a recommendation in list of "this yes" and "that other no" then what remains to be decided by the chapter?).
In my view, the role of the FDC is to evaluate the general capacity of an organisation in organizing projects, deliver what planned, measure the outputs and the outcomes, adjust its activities based on the results.
Cristian
Ok, but if the request is to diversify the incoming, I suppose that the evaluation of the chapters *must change*.
If the chapters have to find funds because there is no sufficient money to fund their programs (and not a single project), I suppose that the main workload of the chapters would be to find funds and not to do projects.
If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the current measures are inconsistent.
I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off the time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be payment processors.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
In my view, the role of the FDC is to evaluate the general capacity of an organisation in organizing projects, deliver what planned, measure the outputs and the outcomes, adjust its activities based on the results.
Cristian
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
2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the current measures are inconsistent.
Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under evaluation. As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.
I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off the time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be payment processors.
Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board were different. Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.
This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC (see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.
IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.
Cristian
The problem is that any change means "change management".
I would say that the board must evaluate the impact of any change they are bringing using the same effort they use to evaluate an impact of a project.
Any change means change manegemtn (as said) to adapt the current organization to this change.
A change means: money, time, review of strategy, review of organization, review of scope of the organization.
Basically the time needed to find money and to adapt the organization to the changes is more or less similar to the time needed to do projects.
Now I will come back to the FDC: I would expect from the FDC a dedicated section to say that the chapters need resources to finance this change and this resources *cannot be financed with external funds* because it's a request of the board of WMF and the board of WMF must also define the financial resources to adapt this change.
The realistic approach of the FDC would be: the chapters are required to adapt their organization and their strategy to this decision, so WMF will finance the chapters to *apply this change*.
It cannot be done with external funds or with money of the chapters, because it's not a decision of the donors or of the General Assembly.
In any governance aspect it's important to understand that any change is connected with a risk management and with a specific budget to manage the change because any change can have the biggest impact in the organization and probably this impact cannot be rollbacked without spending additional resources.
regards
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the current measures are inconsistent.
Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under evaluation. As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.
I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off
the
time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be
payment
processors.
Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board were different. Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.
This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC (see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.
IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.
Cristian
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
2014-11-24 13:44 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
The problem is that any change means "change management".
But who was it that authorised which change? I would like to focus on what makes sense, which means that any technocratic category just won't lead us anywhere. In the end, what once was referred to as the Wikimedia movement has become a strange lot of organisations that have lost contact with the community of editors. The only thing that keeps them together in the end is money -- which is a bourgeois trade of old. And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter understood that it had to intensify links with the community and partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less money, severing the chapter from its peers. That's no way still to empower the remaining editing community which is best served locally. Cutting the local chapters short and poor results in less support for editors, of course.
Regards, Jürgen.
Hoi, What makes sense is to spend money effectively. When the German chapter decides to change its way drastically, it does not follow that they deserve the same amount of money no questions asked. When they decide to change, they can provide plans that allow for the evaluation of the new track. Asking for money because of the need for change is no problem.
The notion that the community knows best is as much propaganda as anything. Maybe it does, it depends on the plans and in the results to learn if the German community has the right end of the stick. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2014 at 14:31, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com wrote:
2014-11-24 13:44 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
The problem is that any change means "change management".
But who was it that authorised which change? I would like to focus on what makes sense, which means that any technocratic category just won't lead us anywhere. In the end, what once was referred to as the Wikimedia movement has become a strange lot of organisations that have lost contact with the community of editors. The only thing that keeps them together in the end is money -- which is a bourgeois trade of old. And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter understood that it had to intensify links with the community and partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less money, severing the chapter from its peers. That's no way still to empower the remaining editing community which is best served locally. Cutting the local chapters short and poor results in less support for editors, of course.
Regards, Jürgen.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Juergen Fenn <schneeschmelze@googlemail.com
wrote:
<snip>
And isn't it ironic that at a time when the German chapter understood that it had to intensify links with the community and partly already succeeded in getting back on track it is given less money, severing the chapter from its peers.
<snip>
Regards, Jürgen.
Given that WMDE still receives far, far more than any other chapter, it's hard to swallow this claim that the budget reduction is what has severed it from its peers. I'd also challenge you to provide any evidence that the decline in editors is the result of the superprotect right, a bold claim to make without providing any support.
Hoi, Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for? Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2014 at 13:29, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-24 11:28 GMT+01:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
If you evaluate the ability to do projects, and not to find funds, the current measures are inconsistent.
Please note that the ability to raise funds isn't (and wasn't) under evaluation. As it has already being said fundraising needs capacity and time.
I remember that someone in WMF several years ago said that the chapters have to focus on projects because there is sufficient money to cut off
the
time of fundraising and to dedicate this time in more profitable time.
Now the strategy is changing. So the chapters have to find money.
I read a lot of incoherences in this statement and in general in what was said several years ago when the chapters where invited to don't be
payment
processors.
Yes, I remember that until very recently the messages from the Board were different. Now, what I am seeing rather clearly is this new general direction.
This was also written in the board guidance for the FDC:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-04-18#Guidance_for_the_FDC (see point n. 6) but basically nobody noticed it.
IMHO avoiding to point it out would now and as cleary as possible would have been irresponsible towards the chapters.
Cristian
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
2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage: «The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals.»
(see also what I said in my previous email) (it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational costs)
C
I can also read that:
"Yet the growth of *non-English communities* and project material is critical for a vigorous and energetic long-term future for the projects, and indeed, it is one of the top priorities developed by the movement through our strategic planning process".
In addition I can read in the question of external funds that: "It should also mean that *movement entities with the ability to fundraise independently*, should seek to diversify their funding base in order to create a sustainable, scalable strategy for their own growth".
In my opinion there is a misreading of the FDC in these guidelines because it seems that the FDC agrees that the chapters have organized themselves as "community supporter" and not as fundraiser.
So the suggestion of looking for external funds should be valid for chapter "with the ability to fundraise independently". It's a good principle, but this principle asks also to evaluate if a chapter is sufficiently mature to do it.
Sorry, everytime I read this guidance I see no real support in your "general" principles.
regards
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked for?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage: «The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals.»
(see also what I said in my previous email) (it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational costs)
C
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, nobody has said that chapters should become fundraiser entities. We have been very emphatic that the main focus of APG proposals should be delivering impact in the projects and we maintain that. What we have said is that chapters that have the opportunities to fundraise and reduce their dependence from the FDC, should take those opportunities. But we have never said that fundraising should be the main purpose of a chapter.
Most APG grantees are already doing this. With some particular exceptions, all chapters have some level of external funding. Some chapters have staff particularly devoted to this, but there are some that have done it without fundraising staff (for example, Estonia). Other chapters have explained in the past that external funding is very difficult to find given their national and organizational context. The FDC has evaluated these situations and has accepted to give all funding for those entities (i.e., Argentina). Everything will depend on the context of each chapter, each country and each level of maturity.
2014-11-26 9:33 GMT-03:00 Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com:
I can also read that:
"Yet the growth of *non-English communities* and project material is critical for a vigorous and energetic long-term future for the projects, and indeed, it is one of the top priorities developed by the movement through our strategic planning process".
In addition I can read in the question of external funds that: "It should also mean that *movement entities with the ability to fundraise independently*, should seek to diversify their funding base in order to create a sustainable, scalable strategy for their own growth".
In my opinion there is a misreading of the FDC in these guidelines because it seems that the FDC agrees that the chapters have organized themselves as "community supporter" and not as fundraiser.
So the suggestion of looking for external funds should be valid for chapter "with the ability to fundraise independently". It's a good principle, but this principle asks also to evaluate if a chapter is sufficiently mature to do it.
Sorry, everytime I read this guidance I see no real support in your "general" principles.
regards
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Cristian Consonni < kikkocristian@gmail.com> wrote:
2014-11-24 14:04 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Then why did the nl.wikimedia chapter not get the funding they asked
for?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
If you want my personal take on it, I would highlight this passage: «The FDC also notes the very large reserves Wikimedia Nederland has at this moment, equal to nearly a full year of staff costs, which does not seem justified in their context. The FDC expects the chapter to reduce these large reserves in the near future, decreasing the amount requested to the FDC in future proposals.»
(see also what I said in my previous email) (it may also worth to point out that the standard amount of reserves in the field are considered to be among 3 and 6 months of operational costs)
C
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
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikime...
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs. WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.
Anders
pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik _______________________________________________ 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
It's important to know the timeline.
Probably paying someone to be a member of the wikipedian community would produce more *statistical impact* in short time but less *real impact* in longtime.
The problem is to know if the aim is to have numbers or to have a real and lontime impact.
regards
On 23.11.2014 14:59, Anders Wennersten wrote:
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikime...
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs. WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.
Anders
Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by bots. What is the link for this?
Rupert On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/ 2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs. WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.
Anders
pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly.
We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a
requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik _______________________________________________ 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
rupert THURNER skrev den 2014-11-23 15:19:
Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by bots. What is the link for this?
Rupert
*Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Sweden Swedish 2,289 2,289 2,227 Active (5+/mo) 701 647 747
so somewhat down a year ago and up this autumn. And without the activities from WMSE I estimate we would have seen a decline of 10-15%. Glam initiatives and education support programs from WMSE does not only bring in new editors and edits but also boost the morale of the oldies (as also good reports in media (thx WMSE) and the botgeneration does)
Anders
On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/ 2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs. WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.
Anders
pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly.
We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a
requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Anders,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:59, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time series of the number of editors and say "good trend -> congrats, chapter" / "bad trend -> oh, guess the chapter did a bad job". What tells you that if a project is experiencing a 10% decline of its editor base from year 1 to year 2 that it wouldn't have lost 20% without the chapter's activities?
(I did not have the impression though that this is what FDC staff meant with "has not demonstrated past impact".)
Patrik
pajz, 23/11/2014 18:07:
while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time series of the number of editors and say "good trend -> congrats, chapter" / "bad trend -> oh, guess the chapter did a bad job". What tells you that if a project is experiencing a 10% decline of its editor base from year 1 to year 2 that it wouldn't have lost 20% without the chapter's activities?
Indeed; blaming WMDE for the number of editors in de.wiki is less ridiculous than asking immediate disbanding of WMF for the editor decline. Back to serious numbers: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm If you check the graphs for active editors and desktop page views, the two lines are curiously parallel. Coincidence? Yes, several of the biggest Wikipedias are quickly rushing to their death in few years; nobody is doing anything. Cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_sudden_decline_of_Italian_Wikip...
Nemo
"Federico Leva (Nemo)" nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time series of the number of editors and say "good trend -> congrats, chapter" / "bad trend -> oh, guess the chapter did a bad job". What tells you that if a project is experiencing a 10% decline of its editor base from year 1 to year 2 that it wouldn't have lost 20% without the chapter's activities?
Indeed; blaming WMDE for the number of editors in de.wiki is less ridiculous than asking immediate disbanding of WMF for the editor decline. Back to serious numbers: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryDE.htm If you check the graphs for active editors and desktop page views, the two lines are curiously parallel. Coincidence? Yes, several of the biggest Wikipedias are quickly rushing to their death in few years; nobody is doing anything. Cf. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:The_sudden_decline_of_Italian_Wikip...
Note the different scales on the time axes, though.
But I think the bigger problem will not be the number of ac- tive editors, but the quality of the corpus if the majority of editors indeed "fixes" articles on a train or in a lift.
Tim
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, at 10:55, Juergen Fenn wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
Were that the case, I'd've expected WM-DE to dissolve in protest. That it exists suggests that things would continue to work the same way - with the Chapter supporting outreach and similar activities - for another while.
-- svetlana
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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
Dear Gerald,
you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move forward.
And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
Best regards
Jens Best Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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, Well it is mightely well hidden. Or in other words you are preaching to your choir but outside the immediate sphere of influence it is not heard far from it, I am really upset by what happened and now the fall out that was waiting to happen.
Propaganda.. REALLY ? I am my own man and at that I am a fan of the German chapter ie what it DOES. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2014 at 07:25, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Gerald,
you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move forward.
And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
Best regards
Jens Best Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being dismissed without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn <
schneeschmelze@googlemail.com>
wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten <mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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
Well,
you maybe true with the fact that some of it is "hidden", but if you have to start clearing the mess you inherited for good not every necessary action you undertake is immediately seen. True on that. Sustainable Structure and real impact is a little bit more complicated to establish and to nourish than increasing money numbers and collecting thousands of zombie members. So, yes, the real work starts now.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-11-24 7:34 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Well it is mightely well hidden. Or in other words you are preaching to your choir but outside the immediate sphere of influence it is not heard far from it, I am really upset by what happened and now the fall out that was waiting to happen.
Propaganda.. REALLY ? I am my own man and at that I am a fan of the German chapter ie what it DOES. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2014 at 07:25, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Gerald,
you spreading propaganda. Of course there is a practical vision to move forward.
And even the Interims-ED is already a better alternative to what was understood under management and leadership by Mr. Richter.
Best regards
Jens Best Am 24.11.2014 07:19 schrieb "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com :
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered. It is about Pavel being
dismissed
without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn <
schneeschmelze@googlemail.com>
wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten <
mail@anderswennersten.se
:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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
Gerard Meijssen skrev den 2014-11-24 07:18:
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered.
I wonder where you source for this comes from. I has been a member of FDC even if not any longer. The Board stated last December that investment in chapter must show clearer impact. Lila did just a few week issued a statement on the importance that impact can be proven in hard figures
WMDE have been acting as a chapter longer than any other and run a lot of programs, like educating enormous amount of people and having a huge staff of community support people. To then show the biggest decline of editors is surely a critical thing in the evaluation of their proposal. And the decline could be seen even before the issue of superprotect right. and also worse then can be seen in Austria, also working on dewp.
Anders
It is about Pavel being dismissed without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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, Sorry if I am not clear. My understanding of the mail I replied to was the point that the Germans were their usual self in their reaction to the Visual Editor and were punished for that. THIS is in my opinion not the case. The argument was about dismissing Pavel in such a way that it cost tons of money and without any noticable effect..
The fact that the German Wikipedia is not performing well has more to do with the conservatism of the Wikipedia community and is not attributable to the chapter. What is happening in Sweden is something that is known to me but I do not know about any research or other papers that explain what it is exactly what is happening there.. Such papers would help chip away at the archaic stance of many German Wikipedians. IMHO they are wrong in many ways but having papers explaining what it is EXACTLY what they have right and wrong would be really valuable. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2014 at 07:59, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Gerard Meijssen skrev den 2014-11-24 07:18:
Hoi, This is not at all what is considered.
I wonder where you source for this comes from. I has been a member of FDC even if not any longer. The Board stated last December that investment in chapter must show clearer impact. Lila did just a few week issued a statement on the importance that impact can be proven in hard figures
WMDE have been acting as a chapter longer than any other and run a lot of programs, like educating enormous amount of people and having a huge staff of community support people. To then show the biggest decline of editors is surely a critical thing in the evaluation of their proposal. And the decline could be seen even before the issue of superprotect right. and also worse then can be seen in Austria, also working on dewp.
Anders
It is about Pavel being dismissed
without a good alternative or any practical vision to move forward. Thanks, GerardM
move on
On 24 November 2014 at 00:55, Juergen Fenn <schneeschmelze@googlemail.com
wrote:
2014-11-23 14:59 GMT+01:00 Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se:
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community
I would like to say that the German chapter is not really responsible for the recent decline of editors in German Wikipedia. This is due to the introduction of the superprotect right. It is Lila Tretikov and Erik Möller alone who are to be held responsible for that. Many of us have lost interest in editing much after the scandal, and there is nothing WMDE can do in order to turn this around. The German-speaking community will probably not recover from this blow. The ball lies in the bay area, and it has not been played since September.
Regards, Jürgen.
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
Anders,
the problem is the strong US/EN-centric way the projects are handled by WMF. That drives people away (especially the more critical/touchy communities like DE), and it didn't start with the superprotect mess. There were other serious affronts by WMF (image filter, etc.) to the community before that, but don't let us delve into that now, everyone following this list in the last 5 or so years knows what is meant. ;)
Moreover, how is this "impact" measured? By number of uploads/new articles etc.? The dewp community has always valued quality much much higher than quantity. Does WMF even have a decent way of measuring quality for that impact assessment? So before looking at WMDE's performance to keep the community alive, one should first look at WMF's and there I see many shortfalls as well. Nobody can link the editor decline in DE projects to WMDE's performance alone. There are just too many other factors, including cultural differences, that need to be taken into account as well.
Th.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org