Hi there, I was reading some fundraising-related pages today, and stumbled upon the planning cycle for the 2013/2014 fiscal year budget at https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Part_II-_2012-13_Year-to-Date_and_Lookahead_to_Planning_for_2013-14.pdf&page=10.
I noticed that there is no space left for open community consultation period, and since this has been published by a WMF staff member /and/ on the WMF wiki, I'm assuming it's the official stance of the Foundation.
Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in total privacy?
Thanks,
Tomasz W. Kozłowski, 09/04/2013 13:18:
Hi there, I was reading some fundraising-related pages today, and stumbled upon the planning cycle for the 2013/2014 fiscal year budget at https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:Part_II-_2012-13_Year-to-Date_and_Lookahead_to_Planning_for_2013-14.pdf&page=10.
I noticed that there is no space left for open community consultation period, and since this has been published by a WMF staff member /and/ on the WMF wiki, I'm assuming it's the official stance of the Foundation.
Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in total privacy?
For the sake of precision, that slide says that there is no space for input by the board either. "Revisions are made" only after Stu's comments, then the board votes no or yes (in 15 days only out of 5 months of work).
Nemo
On 9 April 2013 12:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in total privacy?
For the sake of precision, that slide says that there is no space for input by the board either. "Revisions are made" only after Stu's comments, then the board votes no or yes (in 15 days only out of 5 months of work).
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final; it promptly goes into...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Timeline
and presumably will have a community consultation like this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/W...
(Please feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong!)
It seems that applying to the FDC for funding periods already begun has been outruled going forward: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#fundin.... If I read the FAQ correctly. I am not sure if the WMF is giving itself and exception?
Best regards, Bence
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
On 9 April 2013 12:22, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Without going into unneccessary detail, let me just ask a simple question: are there any particular reasons why the WMF does not want community input on the budget, and drafts such a vital document in total privacy?
For the sake of precision, that slide says that there is no space for
input
by the board either. "Revisions are made" only after Stu's comments, then the board votes no or yes (in 15 days only out of 5 months of work).
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final; it promptly goes into...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Timeline
and presumably will have a community consultation like this one:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/W...
(Please feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong!)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 9 April 2013 12:45, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
The WMF works out a budget internally, and the Board vote to approve it by the end of June. It is released on 1 July, but isn't yet final; it promptly goes into...
Only a very small portion of the WMF's budget goes through the FDC.
On 9 April 2013 13:45, Andrew Gray wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
They might follow this, though I am afraid that there is very little point in discussing a budget that has already been aproved. This timeline includes all events up to July 1, the day that the 2013/2014 fiscal year begins—so if community consultations are planned after that date, there is little point in having them at all.
On April 9, Sue was supposed to "deliver Board feedback to the team"; can anyone comment on whether this happened, and if so, whether it would be possible for community members to see the budget v. 1 and Sue's feedback on it?
Also, if this is not possible, can we at least know why?
Hello Tomasz,
We do need a more active public discussion about the WMF budget. Both before and after it is approved. (The best input to the next year's plan is often input on what is happening in the current year; and continuous feedback that reaches some resolution is more helpful than a burst of conflicting feedback.)
The Board has had its first discussion about the 2013-14 plan; it is part of our agenda tomorrow and Friday. While some details may be private, I don't see why we can't post an outline and update it on Meta before July. I will raise this in our meeting and get back to you.
Sam.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski odder.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2013 13:45, Andrew Gray wrote:
Doesn't the community consultation *follow* this?
They might follow this, though I am afraid that there is very little point in discussing a budget that has already been aproved. This timeline includes all events up to July 1, the day that the 2013/2014 fiscal year begins—so if community consultations are planned after that date, there is little point in having them at all.
On April 9, Sue was supposed to "deliver Board feedback to the team"; can anyone comment on whether this happened, and if so, whether it would be possible for community members to see the budget v. 1 and Sue's feedback on it?
Also, if this is not possible, can we at least know why?
-- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Samuel Klein w:user:sj @metasj +1 617 529 4266
Hi Sam, thanks for the message, I appreciate hearing from a Board member at long last.
I agree that it might be a good idea to collect feedback during the year (is there actually any page that could be used for this purpose on Meta?) — but I think that it also needs to be mentioned that it's much easier and much more useful for the community to comment on a budget plan, especially before it is approved and put into motion.
Can you please let us know if the Board arrived at any decision about this? I had a look at the questions that were asked to you during the open meeting in Milan (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-meeting-with-the-board), but I was unable to find any related to the budget issue.
-- Tomasz
Tomasz W. Kozlowski, 22/04/2013 21:57:
I had a look at the questions that were asked to you during the open meeting in Milan (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-meeting-with-the-board), but I was unable to find any related to the budget issue.
I confirm there was none, I noticed the lack of one.
Nemo
Hello Tomasz,
We did discuss it in our meeting.
The draft plans that the board sees include some details that we would not publish, but we agreed that at a suitably high level we can be more transparent about sharing budget/plan overviews. I need to follow up with Sue this week about what this could look like this year.
I also expected a financial question during our joint session; for those who did not attend, and have other questions for the Board, please feel free to post them on our Meta noticeboard:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard
Tomasz writes:
I think that it also needs to be mentioned that it's much easier and much more useful for the community to comment on a budget plan, especially before it is approved and put into motion.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already little leeway for significant change.
What I would prefer to see is an additional piece of the mid-year assessment in Jan/Feb, which includes a rough draft of next year's budget and plan. That is a better time to comment, if you want those comments to be incorporated into the plan (and not simply noted for the following year).
Here is the assessment from this past February, as linked from the minutes of the Feb 1-2 board meeting: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Year-to-Date_and_Lookahead_... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-02-01
Sam.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tomasz@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Hi Sam, thanks for the message, I appreciate hearing from a Board member at long last.
I agree that it might be a good idea to collect feedback during the year (is there actually any page that could be used for this purpose on Meta?) — but I think that it also needs to be mentioned that it's much easier and much more useful for the community to comment on a budget plan, especially before it is approved and put into motion.
Can you please let us know if the Board arrived at any decision about this? I had a look at the questions that were asked to you during the open meeting in Milan (https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-meeting-with-the-board), but I was unable to find any related to the budget issue.
-- Tomasz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Sam, first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already little leeway for significant change.
This probably means that there is something wrong with the process and the timing; we all know that getting community feedback (and replying to it) is a lengthy procedure, so I guess we should start it much earlier next time, probably around the New Year.
Wouldn't it be better if, say, a draft of the budget and plan is submitted for community feedback, and only then brought up at a Board meeting so that the Board can include community feedback, too?
Here is the assessment from this past February, as linked from the minutes of the Feb 1-2 board meeting:
Yes, the PDF file is exactly the one I mentioned in my e-mail from weeks ago; it's also the same that Nemo_bis wrote about on this mailing list the moment it appeared on the WMF wiki. However, it should be noted that the community is at a very serious disadvantage here; that Board meeting took place in the first days of February, and the notes (and that file) were only published on March 8, leaving very little time for feedback.
-- Tomasz
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tomasz@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Hi Sam, first of all, let me thank you for your involvement in this—it's appreciated! Other comments follow in-line.
By the time we see a final-draft plan in April/May, there is already little leeway for significant change.
This probably means that there is something wrong with the process and the timing; we all know that getting community feedback (and replying to it) is a lengthy procedure, so I guess we should start it much earlier next time, probably around the New Year.
Gah! As someone who works for the foundation and has had to deal with budget issues in engineering (though this is my personal opinion) the budget process is already incredibly long, drawn out, and stressful. If I had to start the planning in November to get a draft out by Jan 1, then keep revising it until May... not only would that take up a large amount of staff time, it'd also cause a stressful process to be even more stressful.
Wouldn't it be better if, say, a draft of the budget and plan is submitted for community feedback, and only then brought up at a Board meeting so that the Board can include community feedback, too?
-- Leslie Carr Wikimedia Foundation AS 14907, 43821 http://as14907.peeringdb.com/
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources into getting input into the budget development process from members of the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to dedicate a substantial amount of time does matter, crowdsourcing a budget doesn't work. The WMF is not a wiki.
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Nathan wrote:
The necessity of public comment on a detailed budget is overblown. I don't think the Foundation should dedicate a lot of time or resources into getting input into the budget development process from members of the community. This is one area where expertise and the ability to dedicate a substantial amount of time does matter, crowdsourcing a budget doesn't work. The WMF is not a wiki.
I fully agree.
My team, Editor Engagement Experiments, was one of the few submitted to the FDC for approval.[1] We got almost no substantive questions or comments on the Talk page or mailing lists from community members about our budget. I got a lot more valuable feedback/questions from single hour-long meeting with Dariusz (chair of the FDC) than from any of the public discussion or question period.
To Leslie's point and SJ's replies: no matter how efficient our process internally, adding a lengthy community discussion period adds overhead for staff. The idea that we would publish and not respond directly to volunteers, as SJ suggested, is silly. Of course we would. Having that discussion is the whole point of publishing something before it's finalized. The question is: is it worth the cost in staff time?
In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.
I'll finally note that budget planning internally is not a totally open collaborative process. Budget owners (typically directors at the management level) and above gather feedback and input from teams, but otherwise we leave it up to them to work out with Sue and and C-level staff. I am very happy to do this, and to be able to do my job without having to argue about money with anyone. I'd like it to stay that way, thanks.
Steven
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Wikime...
Steven Walling, 23/04/2013 17:58:
I fully agree.
My team, Editor Engagement Experiments, was one of the few submitted to the FDC for approval.[1] We got almost no substantive questions or comments on the Talk page or mailing lists from community members about our budget. [...]
That the FDC process has these problems, is a well-known issue and is completely unrelated. Also, WMF is surely not the entity having more problems coordinating its planning process with the FDC's. On both the matters see http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-feedback ; please don't mix things up.
Nemo
Steven, I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a thesis that — that's the impression I'm getting — the community cannot provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware, community members have been providing fantastic feedback for all kinds of issues, including financial ones (with the GAC, which is a community committee, being the most prominent example).
In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.
As I wrote in one of my previous e-mails, there is very little point in providing feedback/commenting on something that's already been adopted and put into motion. It would be much more inviting and empowering for community members if they could comment on an actual plan, with the feeling that their feedback might actually be put into consideration and make a difference.
Commenting on a budget for a fiscal year that starts in on July 1 in August does not give that feeling—let us just take this year's annual plan as an example: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf was only published on July 28. That getting feedback on budget might suck time and energy from Foundation staff is probably of little concern for community members.
-- Tomasz
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Steven, I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a thesis that — that's the impression I'm getting — the community cannot provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware, community members have been providing fantastic feedback for all kinds of issues, including financial ones (with the GAC, which is a community committee, being the most prominent example).
I don't view GAC and other insular committees as a successful model for open community feedback. They typically are formed from a relatively tiny group of people who like being on such committees, are slow, and tend to become inactive over time.
I already gave an example, FDC, of where community feedback failed to provide insights in to the budget and planning of a top priority team when invited to do so before it was accepted. Do you have other examples where constructive community feedback prior to finalization led to substantive changes in a WMF-related budget?
(I of course am talking solely about community feedback on financial planning in this case, not about the dozens and dozens of ways the community functions more smoothly and efficiently than the WMF.)
In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from
budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.
As I wrote in one of my previous e-mails, there is very little point in providing feedback/commenting on something that's already been adopted and put into motion. It would be much more inviting and empowering for community members if they could comment on an actual plan, with the feeling that their feedback might actually be put into consideration and make a difference.
Commenting on a budget for a fiscal year that starts in on July 1 in August does not give that feeling—let us just take this year's annual plan as an example: <https://wikimediafoundation.**org/w/index.php?title=File:* *2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_**Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdfhttps://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf> was only published on July 28. That getting feedback on budget might suck time and energy from Foundation staff is probably of little concern for community members.
-- Tomasz______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
from my point of view, it would be really great if there was more feedback from the community on the FDC proposals, but I also understand that reading detailed proposals is not necessarily something that many active members have the necessary time for.
I think it is clear that the community can provide valuable feedback, although any feedback just in itself should not be the purpose in its own, right?
best,
dariusz
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
Steven, I am actually disappointed to see you bring such an example to back up a thesis that -- that's the impression I'm getting -- the community cannot provide valuable feedback on budget-related matters.
The experience that I have is quite opposite: as far as I am aware, community members have been providing fantastic feedback for all kinds of issues, including financial ones (with the GAC, which is a community committee, being the most prominent example).
In this case I think the answer is that it would suck time and energy from
budget planning and would not add much real value to the budget other than warm and fuzzy feelings. The amount of transparency would also not be substantively increased, because we already publish the WMF budget and annual plan, and respond to inquiries about it.
As I wrote in one of my previous e-mails, there is very little point in providing feedback/commenting on something that's already been adopted and put into motion. It would be much more inviting and empowering for community members if they could comment on an actual plan, with the feeling that their feedback might actually be put into consideration and make a difference.
Commenting on a budget for a fiscal year that starts in on July 1 in August does not give that feeling--let us just take this year's annual plan as an example: <https://wikimediafoundation.**org/w/index.php?title=File:* *2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_**Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdfhttps://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf> was only published on July 28. That getting feedback on budget might suck time and energy from Foundation staff is probably of little concern for community members.
-- Tomasz______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.plwrote:
from my point of view, it would be really great if there was more feedback from the community on the FDC proposals, but I also understand that reading detailed proposals is not necessarily something that many active members have the necessary time for.
I think it is clear that the community can provide valuable feedback, although any feedback just in itself should not be the purpose in its own, right?
best,
dariusz
I guess it might be helpful to figure out what the point of feedback is, exactly.
The board's input is pretty high-level. And without a pretty indepth knowledge of costs and planning information, feedback from anyone else (i.e. members of the community) would also of necessity be pretty high-level.
For instance: I don't know, and don't care, how much office supplies cost for the WMF; I trust whoever writes the budget for office supplies to know what they're doing, and whoever their boss is to provide any necessary checks against buying too many pencils. I *do* care if we have to expand the physical office substantively because we hired a bunch more people, thereby adding x% to our overall physical facilities budget. However, in the grand scheme of things I don't even care very much about the facilities budget: what I *really* care about is what projects all those new people are working on, and whether those projects are the right direction for the WMF to expand in.
I'm going to guess that last question is the one that most people on this list also really care about. Similarly, I think that's the kind of feedback that was initially hoped for with the FDC proposals: are these useful and valuable projects? So the question I'd ask is whether making comments on a draft of the WMF budget (which is a staff-driven and fairly technical document) is the right way to get community feedback into how the WMF is shaped.* I don't really think it is; I think ideally we'd actually be talking about community input into more of an ongoing strategic-planning type process that helps shape budget planning, not the other way around.
-- phoebe
* since I assume that's what the goal is of feedback, not to say review the budget for typos, though that could also be a valuable community service.
Exactly. The community is involved in the strategic planning process, and has the opportunity to review the spending and changes over time, both through the visible elements of annual planning and the annual reports. In addition, there is (obviously) pretty robust discussion here when questions arise about priorities. I don't know that a new stage of budget development of "community feedback" would be very useful.
Many people may not be familiar with what an in-process budget for $30m+ of spending looks like, or how they arrive at the final product (which is usually presented publicly, and even internally at higher levels, in a summary format). It simply isn't reasonable to expect that anyone outside the WMF is going to have meaningful input on the minutiae of budgeting. Time and attention of community members is best spent on FDC proposals, strategic planning and Board elections - and the levers for those roles already exist.
~Nathan
phoebe ayers, 23/04/2013 22:00:
[...]
I think it is clear that the community can provide valuable feedback, although any feedback just in itself should not be the purpose in its own, right?
I guess it might be helpful to figure out what the point of feedback is, exactly. [...]
Dariusz is right here in starting with a firm point, in my opinion; without such a premise, the discussion can hardly go anywhere. I also agree that you'd have to figure out a process, but not that you can judge feedback before having it. In my opinion and personal experience, input/<insert term> to decision makers is always and unconditionally valuable and helpful to them, provided that: 1) it's non-violent, 2) there is clarity of roles and institutional responsibility, 3) it's actually dealt with (in whatever way).
I'd also say that a board unable to ensure (in some way) these 3 basic requirements would be so dysfunctional as to be useless, and I'm glad to see Sj has proposals to make it work (sorry if I repeat myself: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/64242 ).
Nemo
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own right. It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the movement.
And any information shared in a lookahead document would be at a high level; not budget minutiae.
To be clear about my earlier comment, I started a section about it on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Proposal:_Sharing_futur...
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com writes:
adding a lengthy community discussion period adds overhead for staff.
This assumes the only options are "total secrecy" and "lengthy public discussion". We have other options. I see at least four:
0) Secrecy -- noone sees drafts or ideas until they are finalized. 1) Publishing to inform -- private drafting; a few draft snapshots published for transparency; comments not encouraged (nor responded to, except to correct errata). 2) Public drafting -- iterating on an idea in public, with comments expected (but only occasionally responded to). 3) Collaborative drafting -- requesting feedback and comments (regularly responded to and acted upon, including changing tone & focus)
The last is the only one that involves scheduling time for public discussion.
Sue has, wonderfully, developed some personal thoughts and recommendations as public drafts. She makes it clear how much feedback is welcome ("This is just a scratch pad for me... You can probably just ignore it." # "it's not a collaborative process" # "I'll respond as much as I've got time to"). This is clear, well-received, and limited-overhead.
I think our planning should fall somewhere between 1 and 2; currently it is around 0.5. We want to solicit thoughtful feedback through FDC review. And we can be faster about sharing the drafts we already publish.
Phoebe writes:
I think ideally we'd actually be talking about community input into more of an ongoing strategic-planning type process that helps shape budget planning, not the other way around.
Yes, this is why the timing of discussions triggered by each plan is not so sensitive. But annual planning is a natural trigger for revisiting our longer-term strategies.
SJ
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own right. It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the movement.
I do agree with this. (Though transparency in this area might come more naturally if it was easier to work on a spreadsheet in a wiki!)
But, this thread was started with the specific idea of increasing community input into the budgeting process, so the question I was trying to answer is: how can that be made most effective?
-- phoebe
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
It's good to see so much interest in this thread.
The purpose of transparency is not feedback. It is valuable in its own right. It reduces surprise and supports planning discussions elsewhere in the movement.
I do agree with this. (Though transparency in this area might come more naturally if it was easier to work on a spreadsheet in a wiki!)
(True!)
But, this thread was started with the specific idea of increasing community input into the budgeting process, so the question I was trying to answer is: how can that be made most effective?
Indeed, the thread has gotten a bit off of the original subject.
To that question: I agree that the most effective way to influence budget planning is through updating our strategy, which guides future annual plans for the WMF, as well as future grant-making guidelines.
This is something we should revisit continuously, drawing on new ideas and what we have learned, rather than every 4-5 years.
SJ
Hello again,
A few comments inline:
Leslie Carr writes:
As someone who works for the foundation and has had to deal with budget issues in engineering (though this is my personal opinion) the budget process is already incredibly long, drawn out, and stressful.
This is a problem that we should address. A good budget process should be a helpful planning exercise, aligned with existing work, and not overly stressful. Particularly in our movement, where we have the flexibility to raise funds for whatever seems truly important and urgent.
Last fall, Erik suggested moving towards a more continuous planning model and away from monolithic annual plans; we should certainly think about this and other more natural budgeting/planning models in the coming year.
If I had to start the planning in November to get a draft out by Jan 1...
I don't think any /additional/ planning would be needed to realize Tomasz's suggestion - just faster communication.
The Board already gets a draft of the midyear-review-and-lookahead a few weeks ahead of its Q3 meeting. All we need to do is publish a simple version of this for the community, at around the same time. That would allow any first-blush feedback from the community to inform the Board discussion.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tomasz@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Wouldn't it be better if, say, a draft of the budget and plan is submitted for community feedback, and only then brought up at a Board meeting so that the Board can include community feedback, too?
I would say "shared for community discussion" rather than "submitted for community feedback". That is, staff might not respond directly to community feedback. But the staff and Board would see related community discussion and take that into consideration.
You are right to point out that it took too long to publish the final version of that review after the meeting. Materials from Board meetings that can be public -- such as the midyear review -- can be published right away, without waiting for meeting minutes to be approved. We have done this on occasion (especially for materials from the ED, who has often developed her recommendations directly on Meta) -- but should make this a habit, linked from the agenda as soon as it is published.
Sam.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org