Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests have now been published at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. [3] The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new applicant. This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets, plans, strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals. The committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals submitted this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data, the committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation about the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and budget detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4] and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson, and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who submitted annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20... [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom... [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On 23 November 2015 at 21:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine
Thank you for your question, Pine. WMDE did not submit a restricted grant request for Wikidata. WMDE submitted a restricted grant request for Wikidata and other software projects, and then said that it was not able to disaggregate the budgets for each of these two separate projects. Most other proposals were able to provide greater detail on the cost of individual programs within their proposal, despite the fact that they sought dramatically fewer resources. As well, the Wikidata project specifically is working toward a direct funding package with the WMF, and it will be essential for those costs to be clearly disaggregated in order for this to happen. They will not be able to include the costs of other programs in that agreement, and they will have to be able to more accurately apportion costs such as rent, administrative overhead, supplies and services.
In addition, it has sectioned off the majority of its budget from direct FDC input, stating that it is not seeking Annual Plan Grant (APG) funding for that portion of its budget. Nonetheless, that budget is paid for out of money intended for the growth of the movement. FDC members were able to identify several points in that aspect of the WMDE annual plan that appear to be disproportionately funded compared to similar programs from other chapters, and the FDC believed that there are plenty of opportunities for cost saving in the administrative and other areas that would ensure funding for the planned software development which is intended to provide benefit to both the local editing community and the Wikimedia movement.
I will note that I am going to post the same response to Marcus Cyron's comments on the talk page[1], as I believe his comments are in a similar vein.
User:Risker - FDC member
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendatio...
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who submitted annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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
Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this answer feels like a "kiss off".
On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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
--- Brandon Harris :: bharris@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
I had a go at simplifying:
We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to
try to do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at what's happened in previous years in order to see where things fell short then, comparing that to what the FDC standards say should be happening. See also link.
That's how I read it, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't actually know anything about this stuff.
On 24/11/15 04:30, Brandon Harris wrote:
Could you answer this question in plain language, please, as this answer feels like a "kiss off".
On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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
Brandon Harris :: bharris@gaijin.com :: made of steel wool and whiskey
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 24 November 2015 at 07:46, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
I had a go at simplifying:
We know spending less time on this is a problem, but we're going to try to do better. In order to help with this, we'll also be looking at what's happened in previous years in order to see where things fell short then, comparing that to what the FDC standards say should be happening. See also link.
It's a better reading, though it is also true (as Lila stated) that this has been publicly recognized as an issue for four years, and at this moment the WMF is "looking" and asking for suggestions rather than getting on with making obvious improvements immediately, beyond tweaking the planning schedule.
Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
Fae
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
Yes. I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions. Talk is cheap.
A.
On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
Yes. I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions. Talk is cheap.
A.
Certainly, but asking someone to reword a thing doesn't help with the actions either.
Actually, as an employee of the WMF, Asaf may be able to contribute here. Asaf, this is an issue that you feel the organization you that pays you to help fulfill its mission must address. How are you going to lead within the WMF to make sure it gets addressed?
Best. ,Wil
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/11/15 09:47, Asaf Bartov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Brandon's description of this looking like a 'kiss off', i.e. a spin to make this disappear for another year, seems to meet the facts of what can be observed and measured in a non-subjective way.
Yes. I encourage everyone to judge WMF by its actions. Talk is cheap.
A.Certainly, but asking someone to reword a thing doesn't help with the actions either.
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 Lila,
I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing issue for years. What is required now is not more going around in circles with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up having a closer relation to the actual outcomes. The ball, as they say, is firmly in your court.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net
wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of
a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Craig,
You are right, this has been an ongoing request for years. This year we did many infrastructure updates for financial planning. However we missed some objectives. I take responsibility, specifically for the very short community feedback window on the annual plan this year. We fixed this in our upcoming plan. Overall we have improved in some of our core budgeting and accounting areas, but still have work to do.
This is what we have done this year to set up for financial controls:
+ Implemented KPIs across the organizations. + Implemented quarterly goals and reviews across organization. + Reduced book close to 15 days. + Catalogued projects to set up project-based accounting. + Created business cases to evaluate cost/benefit analysis as an evaluation tool for new projects. + Accounting/analytics software updates.
Here is what is upcoming the rest of the fiscal year:
+ 3 year forward revenue/spend forecast. + A consultation with community about strategic goals. + A 30 day review period for the annual plan. + More detailed annual plan, project based accounting where possible. Impact goals. + Gap analysis of the annual plan vs. FDC. + Wikidata integration into the annual plan.
Here is what under advisement:
+ 3rd party review of the annual plan. + FDC process alignment.
Project based budgeting and 3 year forward projections are going to give us good understanding of the overall costs of multi-year projects. We will be able to answer for the total cost of developing Wikidata or new editing environment. This is a great improvement over what we were able to do previously and will help us with setting priorities in the future.
Lila
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi Lila,
I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing issue for years. What is required now is not more going around in circles with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up having a closer relation to the actual outcomes. The ball, as they say, is firmly in your court.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year and are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin < cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the WMF; the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations
on the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That sounds interesting, Lila. Would it be possible to introduce some concepts of beeing agile in this process and forget about quarterly goals and 3 year planning?
Rupert On Nov 24, 2015 19:53, "Lila Tretikov" lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Craig,
You are right, this has been an ongoing request for years. This year we did many infrastructure updates for financial planning. However we missed some objectives. I take responsibility, specifically for the very short community feedback window on the annual plan this year. We fixed this in our upcoming plan. Overall we have improved in some of our core budgeting and accounting areas, but still have work to do.
This is what we have done this year to set up for financial controls:
- Implemented KPIs across the organizations.
- Implemented quarterly goals and reviews across organization.
- Reduced book close to 15 days.
- Catalogued projects to set up project-based accounting.
- Created business cases to evaluate cost/benefit analysis as an evaluation
tool for new projects.
- Accounting/analytics software updates.
Here is what is upcoming the rest of the fiscal year:
- 3 year forward revenue/spend forecast.
- A consultation with community about strategic goals.
- A 30 day review period for the annual plan.
- More detailed annual plan, project based accounting where possible.
Impact goals.
- Gap analysis of the annual plan vs. FDC.
- Wikidata integration into the annual plan.
Here is what under advisement:
- 3rd party review of the annual plan.
- FDC process alignment.
Project based budgeting and 3 year forward projections are going to give us good understanding of the overall costs of multi-year projects. We will be able to answer for the total cost of developing Wikidata or new editing environment. This is a great improvement over what we were able to do previously and will help us with setting priorities in the future.
Lila
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net
wrote:
Hi Lila,
I very much appreciate your prompt response, but this has been an ongoing issue for years. What is required now is not more going around in
circles
with "consultation" and "discussions" that don't go anywhere; what is needed is for the WMF to take action to improve the transparency of its planning, and review its planning process so that the plans end up
having a
closer relation to the actual outcomes. The ball, as they say, is firmly in your court.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 14:27, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened AP review this year
and
are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall
issue
has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Annual_Plan
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin < cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the situation with the
WMF;
the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area)
is
something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to my mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless FDC that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem is receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here
in
a constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or
trying
to spin them away.
Cheers, Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted
for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations
on the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency
and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint,
and
investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata - that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration and I have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important work is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round. That is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that WMF will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says that "Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope that the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant requests have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for this round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on the annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of these recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one thematic organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support one particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on impact, finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The processes for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who submitted annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by the FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the committee was not provided with this information. While the funds provided are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE applied for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to. Perhaps that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata - that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia Germany for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration and I have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important work is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more problems the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance management practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my concerns about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that the FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its other funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so integrated into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for four days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart de Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and then make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD. Ten affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing of this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about their proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015 in accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki, [4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_upcoming_year.27s_annual_plan of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Questions_from_Risker and then FDC staff https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by the FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the committee was not provided with this information. While the funds provided are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE applied for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to. Perhaps that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata - that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and we have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them over the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature and robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which is understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever, and represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata, the committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata - that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted
for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations
on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency
and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint,
and
investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Anne, do you imagine to publish income per person that way? On Nov 25, 2015 04:53, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated
in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate
that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request
for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I
hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to
help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met
for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted
for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016
recommendations
on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic,
Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review
of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations
and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC
carefully
reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g.,
budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency
and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC
Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint,
and
investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
Not speaking for Anne here, but in general I think all Wikimedia movement-funded compensation should be published. This is already done in a number of Wikimedia grant proposals, and I believe that almost all government agencies in the U.S. are required to provide extensive data about their use of tax money which includes salaries and pensions for individual employees. I think this kind of transparency is appropriate.
Pine
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:18 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, do you imagine to publish income per person that way? On Nov 25, 2015 04:53, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level,
in
table 6b, in the financial section <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b,
and
clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts
by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for
inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with
them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not
treated
in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have
mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate
that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I
hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to
to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata
or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget
(which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into
its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in
this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request
for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to
be
problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I
hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il
wrote:
> Hello Wikimedians, > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG
grant
requests
> have now been published at: >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to
help
make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met
for
four
> days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals
submitted
for
this
> round of funding. [2] > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016
recommendations
on
the
> annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3] > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic,
Jan-Bart
de
> Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its
review
of
these
> recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations
and
then
> make their decision on them before 1 January 2016. > > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
> organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
USD.
Ten
> affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new applicant. > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
> particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
> > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC
carefully
> reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g.,
budgets,
plans, > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis
on
impact,
> finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The > committee had long and intense conversations about the
proposals
submitted > this round. By listening and carefully considering all
available
data,
the > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations. > > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning
transparency
and
budget > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
> this additional recommendation. > > For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
> these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
> for both are outlined below. > > Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation
about
their
> proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
> accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC
Framework. A
formal > appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form
of a
> 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki,
[4]
and > must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
> > Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson, > and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
> well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the
complaint,
and
> investigate as needed. > > Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
> upcoming milestones in the APG program. > > Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
> annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round. > > On behalf of the FDC, > > Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG > [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
> [3] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
> [4] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
> [5] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar > > > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the
Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
On 25 Nov 2015 03:53, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
I think "WMDE did not attempt to attribute overheads to programme costs" is a very different statement to "WMDE did not provide details of how much Wikidata costs".
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts
by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for
inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not
treated in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have
mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate
that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to
to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget
(which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in
this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request
for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I
hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to
help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met
for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted
for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016
recommendations
on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic,
Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its
review of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations
and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC
carefully
reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g.,
budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis
on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency
and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation
about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC
Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint,
and
investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the
Wikimedia
community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of community funds. That's the beauty of a community reviewed process.
However, statements asserting that we did not provide specific information force us to set the record straight. I am not giving any new information. It's all there - in the WMDE proposal https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form and the discussion page:
- Administration costs at the organizational level were differentiated as per FDC member request here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Administration_costs .
- The overhead rate is explained here. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances (scroll down below the table)
(The WMDE overhead rate is 28%. '*Rate*' signifies, that each department contributes equally to overhead as a percentage of its departmental budget. Therefore, the breakdown is also the same across the organization, whether its the Software or the Education Department. I don't think there is a more transparent way to do this, as this standard method does not allow to hide any costs)
- Floating capacity is differentiated and explained here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#budget_.26_finances. (scroll down a few bullets)
WMDE is committed to accountability and transparency and we invest staff, systems and financial resources to accieve this. This is reflected in how diligently WMDE worked to provide community, FDC members and staff with answers to their questions. An informed, fair discussion can and should be based upon the data we provided.
Thank you! Nikki Zeuner and WMDE's ZEN Team
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-25 4:53 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in table 6b, in the financial section <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated
in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate
that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to to disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget (which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in this proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request
for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to be problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I
hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il wrote:
Hello Wikimedians,
tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
have now been published at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to
help
make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met
for
four
days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals submitted
for
this
round of funding. [2]
The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016
recommendations
on
the
annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic,
Jan-Bart
de
Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its review
of
these
recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations
and
then
make their decision on them before 1 January 2016.
This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
USD.
Ten
affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new
applicant.
This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC
carefully
reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g.,
budgets,
plans,
strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The
committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about
the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency
and
budget
detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
this additional recommendation.
For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
for both are outlined below.
Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC
Framework. A
formal
appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form
of a
500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki,
[4]
and
must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint,
and
investigate as needed.
Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
upcoming milestones in the APG program.
Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round.
On behalf of the FDC,
Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 wondered if anyone from FDC is going to respond to this? On 26 Nov 2015 17:04, "Nicola Zeuner" nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Thanks everyone - WMDE welcomes and follows with interest community discussions about our proposal, the relevance of Wikidata and the use of community funds. That's the beauty of a community reviewed process.
However, statements asserting that we did not provide specific information force us to set the record straight. I am not giving any new information. It's all there - in the WMDE proposal < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
and the discussion page:
- Administration costs at the organizational level were differentiated
as per FDC member request here < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
.
- The overhead rate is explained here.
< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
(scroll down below the table)
(The WMDE overhead rate is 28%. '*Rate*' signifies, that each department contributes equally to overhead as a percentage of its departmental budget. Therefore, the breakdown is also the same across the organization, whether its the Software or the Education Department. I don't think there is a more transparent way to do this, as this standard method does not allow to hide any costs)
- Floating capacity is differentiated and explained here
< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
.
(scroll down a few bullets)
WMDE is committed to accountability and transparency and we invest staff, systems and financial resources to accieve this. This is reflected in how diligently WMDE worked to provide community, FDC members and staff with answers to their questions. An informed, fair discussion can and should be based upon the data we provided.
Thank you! Nikki Zeuner and WMDE's ZEN Team
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-25 4:53 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated "floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts, which are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner nicola.zeuner@wikimedia.de wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as well as other software development costs, down to the activity level,
in
table 6b, in the financial section <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikime...
of the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
and then FDC staff <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/W...
asked about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b,
and
clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata
development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks, Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner Partnerships and Development Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: 0172 547 1261 US: 1 (520) 743-6801 www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. http://wikimedia.de
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Hello Gerard -
The recommended grant for Wikimedia Deutschland is larger than ever,
and
represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get
everything
it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts
by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned expenses for Wikidata,
the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
that is where you might want to turn your attention.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, So in essence one of the most relevant development project -
Wikidata -
that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded
and
we
have to say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged source for
inspiration
and I
have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with
them
over
the years.
It is not up to me to doubt the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend
important
work
is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not
treated
in
this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a
result.
Thanks, GerardM
On 24 November 2015 at 03:04, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this
round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger organizations to have
mature
and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented and I appreciate
that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the problems. I
hope
that
WMF
will get serious about its financial transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC
says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the inability of WMDE to
to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in
another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for
WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata
or
their
other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a disaggregated budget
(which
is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into
its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to cover the work in
this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request
for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds the integration to
be
problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I
hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" matanya@foss.co.il
wrote:
> Hello Wikimedians, > > tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG
grant
requests
> have now been published at: >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
> > The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to
help
make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to
achieve
the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1] We met
for
four
> days last week in San Francisco to review 11 proposals
submitted
for
this
> round of funding. [2] > > The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016
recommendations
on
the
> annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3] > The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic,
Jan-Bart
de
> Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the Board in its
review
of
these
> recommendations. The WMF Board will review the recommendations
and
then
> make their decision on them before 1 January 2016. > > This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
> organisation, totaling requests of approximately $3.8 million
USD.
Ten
> affiliates were returning to the APG program, and one was a new applicant. > This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to
support
one
> particular program. All other grant requests were for general
funding.
> > Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC
carefully
> reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g.,
budgets,
plans, > strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis
on
impact,
> finances, and programs, as well as community comments on the
proposals.
The > committee had long and intense conversations about the
proposals
submitted > this round. By listening and carefully considering all
available
data,
the > committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations. > > In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a
recommendation
about > the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning
transparency
and
budget > detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or
writing
of
> this additional recommendation. > > For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals
about
> these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
> for both are outlined below. > > Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation
about
their
> proposal this round should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 December
2015
in
> accordance with the appeal process outlined in the FDC
Framework. A
formal > appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the
form
of a
> 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should be submitted
on-wiki,
[4]
and > must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
applicant.
> > Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the Ombudsperson, > and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on
wiki,
as
> well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly document the
complaint,
and
> investigate as needed. > > Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about
other
> upcoming milestones in the APG program. > > Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
> annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this round. > > On behalf of the FDC, > > Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG > [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
> [3] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
> [4] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_recom...
> [5] >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
> [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar > > > > _______________________________________________ > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the
Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list > WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@lists.wikimedia.org