Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories.
Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here.
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee.
The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.
As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high.
What we would need: 1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...) 2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds 3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)
We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of responsability.
Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement.
Best
Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry
-----Original Message----- From: "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories.
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.
This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
- d.
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff and FDC members in their comments do. Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations Yes, we're still missing some steps
Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created, a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get funds and so made a proposal. But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a regular basis.
This is not a "light" process.
I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals, fostering Wikimedia community.
And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team, we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of the allocation. But we have
And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even leaving, you see employees leaving too. I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years ago and left last December.
That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful one, but a needed one I believe.
Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little reporting? I do not.
Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended). I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process the FDC is.
As I said in my previous email: * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used with a formal process * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests
Best, -- Christophe
On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.
This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
- d.
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.henner@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 To: dgerard@gmail.com CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone As I said in my previous email:
- Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
with a formal process
Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.
- We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests
I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing? Thanks,Abbas.
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.henner@gmail.com Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 To: dgerard@gmail.com CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone As I said in my previous email:
- Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
with a formal process
Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.
Not all, and many only for project grants not for operations grants (like part time accounting). This is a flaw of how the process is perceive I think.
- We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests
I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing? Thanks,Abbas.
GAC is not able to provide grant for a full time employee right now. The only way to get funds for that first employee is through the FDC. Which, as I said earlier, is a really heavy process.
That being said, GAC can already provide funds for external contractors on specific tasks, like accounting.
Is my rephrasing better? :s
-- Christophe
hi,
I whole-heartily agree with many of Christophe's comments. Whenever possible, GAC should take precedent before the FDC in my opinion. The FDC should typically involve those entities, which have grown significantly (often also through part-time staff hired for specific projects well before).
Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw, there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than in the FDC).
The level of expectations in terms of professional preparation of a project also partly depends on the size of an entity. I believe that budgets below 100k should be treated with more lenience than those of over 1m, and the medium-sized budgets in between require some medium approach as well. Yet, ultimately, projects are written to show that the money is really worth spending on them.
What is essential in evaluating proposals, is seeing their impact for the movement. For instance (and bear with me for this theoretical example), I would rather be reluctant to support a project in which the vast majority of expenses are to cover only office work and staff, with minimal direct relation to projects and initiatives themselves. The discussion on what proportions of overheads to other expenses are good is ongoing and, all in all, we probably should be flexible here (because of different labor laws, taxation, customs, etc.). But generally, all projects funded through the FDC should be the ones really worth funding. Also, I think it would be really good if there was more interaction with the prospective applicants prior to applying, so as to help them and make sure they do not invest their time in vain. We are going to suggest changes to the FDC application process soon (and hope to get the community's insight into this, especially from the entities which applied).
I'm writing this reply on the spot to acknowledge the discussion, more to follow tomorrow.
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Christophe Henner < christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff and FDC members in their comments do. Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations Yes, we're still missing some steps
Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created, a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get funds and so made a proposal. But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a regular basis.
This is not a "light" process.
I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals, fostering Wikimedia community.
And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team, we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of the allocation. But we have
And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even leaving, you see employees leaving too. I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years ago and left last December.
That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful one, but a needed one I believe.
Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little reporting? I do not.
Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended). I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process the FDC is.
As I said in my previous email:
- Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
with a formal process
- We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests
Best,
Christophe
On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com
wrote:
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to
fund the first employee.
The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of
time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.
This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.
Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an "algorithm" but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.
These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the project.
This has generated anyway a wasting of time.
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently.
regards
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.plwrote:
Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw, there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than in the FDC).
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of funds came in.
(I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF actively chose to ignore it.)
- d.
well, the fundamental question regarding the "centralisation of funds" is whether we agree that some chapters have higher impact ability (in terms of effectiveness, results, etc.) and should be prioritized in terms of funding access, or whether any decisions about funds distribution based on project analysis are fundamentally wrong. If we agree that the role of the FDC is not only to approve all projects that come in, but also to actively try to evaluate them and occasionally recommend cutting or denying funds from this particular source (while recommending going to others), one thing is guaranteed: the chapters, which do not receive funding, will be disappointed and often will express it, round after round. This should not necessarily be mistaken for a flaw in the FDC process per se, although always some concrete comments and complaints about the process should be considered fully by the ombudsperson, the board, and the community (after all, all projects, discussions about them, as well as assessments are available to read).
The question whether a different FDC composition would evaluate the projects differently is definitely valid, although when 7 (and soon 9) members of the community, all with significant chapter and/or grants experience actually reach a consensus on some issue, I would assume that this agreement may likely be replicable. Nevertheless, there will always also be borderline cases where there is no consensus, and yet a decision has to be made (round 2 went through unanimously though).
My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
Ilario - some general matrix of evaluation is indeed a useful idea. The current for does attempt to address this a little, but definitely it can be improved, and this was also part of the feedback from the community during the chapters conference. Definitely work need to be done in this area, too.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of funds came in.
(I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF actively chose to ignore it.)
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
Actually the information how GAC works is IMHO much more clear that for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact. Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is for sure not a solution for professionalisation.
On 29 April 2013 17:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of funds came in.
(I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF actively chose to ignore it.)
- d.
Hey David,
I fear, but I might be wrong so correct me on that, that you are mixing two things that happened roughly at the same time: * the payment processing * the FDC creation
Payment processing centralisation that is, imo, on the long run a wrong move. And the FDC that is, imo, a good move on the long run.
The first question, payment processing, is not up to discussion for the coming years. [ http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 ]
Whether we like it, or not, the decision the board made is clearly a middle ground that leaves us a few years to test out what seems to be the most efficient. I'm sure we will have long discussions about that in 2015 (if my calculus isn't too bad, we should start to talk about it around then).
If you are actually talking about that, please forget that email (as I don't think it's useful to get in that discussion now ^^)
So the FDC and the centralisation of fund dissemination. Well, before FDC, funds were not really disseminated. WMF and chapters provided other chapters with grant, but for a non fundraising chapter there was little chance to get large sums of money and there was no way to ensure the movement was growing with good practices.
I can't really see why that is a bad thing.
Is the WM HK situation good for the movement right now? Perhaps not. And honestly I don't feel I'm in any position to evaluate that. I didn't read thoroughly their proposal and I just saw about their grant issue (whoever fault it is) today.
The FDC process need to be improved, we all agree on that, and WM HK situation do show that we need that step in-between GAC grants and FDC allocation.
The FDC is in its infancy, and we're hitting bumps. We're facing new challenges. And quite frankly when we designed it last year, I was expecting much much much more issues than we had.
I don't believe we would be pointing fingers and that we'd rather try to find what went wrong and how to fix it.
And that exactly is what we're doing now I think, and what will be done over the coming month.
And as the board member of a chapter that had its first proposal mostly refused and had to go through the process twice in 6 month (and is right now working on the FDC Q1 report) I can definitely say there's room for improvement AND that the FDC process is a really heavy process.
Best,
-- Christophe
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?)
And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more "meaningful".
As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time.
we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it
(also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund
we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME
Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will
And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly
On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane.
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories.
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some basis for a future growth. WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest years (correct me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters, probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and that can be helpful to imagine what you can do.
*Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?)
And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more "meaningful".
As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time.
we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it
(also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund
we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME
Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will
And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly
On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane.
Sent from my iPhone
On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories.
-- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)
Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
hi Jeromy-Yu,
thank you for sharing this personal note.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, etc.).
I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded separately).
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
Is there any (un)official policy/strong advice/anything against direct hiring from WMF/FDC/whatever grants?
Balazs
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
hi Jeromy-Yu,
thank you for sharing this personal note.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan < jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is
bottleneck
we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone
had
to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, etc.).
I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_roun...
But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development,
the
worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded separately).
best,
dariusz ("pundit") _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org