Hello, everyone.
0. Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian -- to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0]. I think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about.
1. Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time eligibility was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3] and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have _liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK’s proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think "eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1 above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds for recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge the proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the different aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
2. I would like to address the theory that not enough information is available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this communication did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does mean lacking information was not the issue here.
3. Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a successful FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process. WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work, assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta) that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff or _temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I can assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE 2012 in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
4. Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only be given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and _impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants Program did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing plans, and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I personally, as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to have the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve this, given certain milestones.
5. Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much rather celebrate successes. :)
Asaf
[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducation... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_...
Thankyou Asaf, points 1.1 and 1.2 pretty much answered all my questions on this.
If I might offer a humble suggestion though, might I suggest for the purposes of determining grant eligibility, rather than saying that it is "Confirmed" or "Not Confirmed", a third status of "Conditional Eligibility" is introduced. This status would be used in situations like WMHK's, where they are eligible at the beginning of the FDC process but have deliverables due before the end of the FDC process that could potentially render them ineligible. This would make it very clear to the entity that while they can proceed with their request, they also have to complete some other tasks to receive an allocation.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 13:04, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
- Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian -- to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0]. I think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about.
- Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time eligibility was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3] and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have _liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK’s proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think "eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1 above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds for recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge the proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the different aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
- I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this communication did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does mean lacking information was not the issue here.
- Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a successful FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process. WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work, assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta) that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff or _temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I can assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE 2012 in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
- Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only be given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and _impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants Program did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing plans, and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I personally, as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to have the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve this, given certain milestones.
- Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much rather celebrate successes. :)
Asaf[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducation... [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_...
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Craig - this is a very good idea!
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.netwrote:
Thankyou Asaf, points 1.1 and 1.2 pretty much answered all my questions on this.
If I might offer a humble suggestion though, might I suggest for the purposes of determining grant eligibility, rather than saying that it is "Confirmed" or "Not Confirmed", a third status of "Conditional Eligibility" is introduced. This status would be used in situations like WMHK's, where they are eligible at the beginning of the FDC process but have deliverables due before the end of the FDC process that could potentially render them ineligible. This would make it very clear to the entity that while they can proceed with their request, they also have to complete some other tasks to receive an allocation.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 13:04, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
- Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian
--
to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0].
I
think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it
may
take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about.
- Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was
informed
of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined
at
a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time
eligibility
was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants
before
additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically
improper!),
and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our
assessments[3]
and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report
pages
and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would
have
_liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and
that
the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility,
but
rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK's internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK's proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK
addresses
these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think "eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1 above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds
for
recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a
secret
anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge
the
proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the
different
aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
- I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply,
that
merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that
existing
information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for
reading
the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this
communication
did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does mean lacking information was not the issue here.
- Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a
successful
FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process. WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work, assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta) that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff
or
_temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I
can
assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE
2012
in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
- Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards
the
Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen
some
chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has
specifically
seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only
be
given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and _impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants
Program
did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing
plans,
and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I
personally,
as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to
have
the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve
this,
given certain milestones.
- Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much
rather
celebrate successes. :)
Asaf[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducation...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_...
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Odd that we're making this suggestion, when in fact "conditional eligibility" already exists. Wikimedia Philippines, for example, is conditionally eligible for FDC funding contingent on the completion of our deliverables (a grant report), which I believe was already delivered.
Regards,
Josh
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (927) 531-8301 Friendster/Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com
________________________________ From: Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl To: cfranklin@halonetwork.net; Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
Craig - this is a very good idea!
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.netwrote:
Thankyou Asaf, points 1.1 and 1.2 pretty much answered all my questions on this.
If I might offer a humble suggestion though, might I suggest for the purposes of determining grant eligibility, rather than saying that it is "Confirmed" or "Not Confirmed", a third status of "Conditional Eligibility" is introduced. This status would be used in situations like WMHK's, where they are eligible at the beginning of the FDC process but have deliverables due before the end of the FDC process that could potentially render them ineligible. This would make it very clear to the entity that while they can proceed with their request, they also have to complete some other tasks to receive an allocation.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 13:04, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
- Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian
--
to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0].
I
think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it
may
take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about.
- Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was
informed
of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined
at
a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time
eligibility
was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants
before
additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically
improper!),
and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our
assessments[3]
and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report
pages
and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would
have
_liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and
that
the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility,
but
rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK's internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK's proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK
addresses
these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think "eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1 above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds
for
recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a
secret
anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge
the
proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the
different
aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
- I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply,
that
merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that
existing
information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for
reading
the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this
communication
did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does mean lacking information was not the issue here.
- Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a
successful
FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process. WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work, assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta) that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff
or
_temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I
can
assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE
2012
in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
- Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards
the
Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen
some
chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has
specifically
seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only
be
given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and _impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants
Program
did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing
plans,
and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I
personally,
as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to
have
the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve
this,
given certain milestones.
- Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much
rather
celebrate successes. :)
Asaf
[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducation...
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_...
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
hi Asaf,
a short comment on two things:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but rather on ground of
it is difficult to speculate what decision would have been made if falling out of compliance was the only issue, but you are definitely right that it was not the only one. We spent quite a while discussing the project and the chapter's ability to tackle larger grants at the moment, eligibility was only a minor point in terms of time spent on discussing it.
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
Yes, it is my personal view, probably shared by many other FDC members, that possible impact is crucial (and definitely more important than just some technical prowess in grant writing). I could see an innovative, brilliant project with huge impact funded, in spite of minor slips in paperwork, while I cannot imagine supporting a bureaucracy-only oriented project, with poor impact, even if it was very professionally written.
This example, of course, is not related to the WMHK proposal.
- I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
Sorry, but for me this is just a rhetorical game here - down to business we have a problem with a clear presentation of what kind of projects can be funded through the FDC and GAC. It is irrelevant if information is lacking, or just poorly or confusingly presented.
Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared.
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared.
Actually it is here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements
"Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year."
although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office.
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-)
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position
for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-)
That's probably not as silly an idea as it sounds - having a local person on the ground with relevant expertise who can assist the chapter not just in preparing their application, but also help them set realistic goals on what could be achieved would no doubt increase the quality of FDC applications and also focus chapters on delivering useful programme work, without causing any bitterness about the Foundation at the same time.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 20:42, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared.
Actually it is here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements
"Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year."
although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office.
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-)
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think it is important to remember what is the main premise behind the FDC: give resources to established chapter in some sort of "long term" capacity. We are dealing with proposals of over 100k to more than 4m. I've heard several times about how hard is to apply for the FDC, how terrible it is... I know it is not an easy task applying nor reporting (we are doing this right now) but it is not the hell that has been pictured. It is a much easier, simple and transparent process than most of the ways any other organization (for profit or not) does to get the level of money we are requesting, or at least that has been my experience. Not because the chapters have nice goals about disseminating free knowledge on local level, we should be treated especially and not being requested to be as serious and professional as possible. I think even the FDC is already taken in consideration the level of professionality of each institution and probably evaluates differently WMAR than WMDE, but both should be able to at least comply with the basics (like clearity in the proposals and goals of the organization, a set of programs, etc.)
But, seriously, if we are not able to write a estructured long report or reply answers about usage of funds, is it possible that we are able to hire effectively and efficiently an Executive Director or run an office? The problem of growth is not much about were to get funds but how this growth is sustainable and makes sense. Although there is no clear path towards professionalization (it would be great to have at least some sort of recommendations and it is something that should be improved), most of the successful cases happened through a smooth transition with some sort of temporary hiring via GAC and then consolidation via FDC. And that makes sense, because moving from a volunteer-driven association to a professional NGO is not easy: it is not easy to find the right employee (probably all the cases hired someone and to fire him/her a few months after), to establish the balance between what should the Board do and what the staff, to solve all the belated paperwork that nobody was able to do before, etc, etc. After going through all of that, then you can think of a more structured way to request funds like the FDC.
I think this is an interesting topic that would have been great to work with in the past Wikimedia Conference, too bad the idea came too late. Maybe a panel for Wikimania?
Osmar Valdebenito G.
2013/4/30 Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position
for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-)
That's probably not as silly an idea as it sounds - having a local person on the ground with relevant expertise who can assist the chapter not just in preparing their application, but also help them set realistic goals on what could be achieved would no doubt increase the quality of FDC applications and also focus chapters on delivering useful programme work, without causing any bitterness about the Foundation at the same time.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 20:42, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions
on
Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I
believe
that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared.
Actually it is here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements
"Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year."
although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office.
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-)
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
... I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
Was this ever formally audited, and if so, is there a link to this report? Just your implication using the word "mismanagement" sounds like "Bad faith" to me...
Just a couple personal points:
Asaf Bartov, 30/04/2013 05:04:
[...] 1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...]
I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter.
[...] 4. Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
As you mention me directly: that's just my opinion, I know it's not the official interpretation (see also Anthere's message).
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
This is the same I said, just in a different way: you say you require the groups to _first_ be "impactful" enough; I say «first you develop your own strengths and then you go to the negotiations [with WMF] if you need to and have something to gain». There's nothing special with this, the WMF has the money and decides how to spend it. Grants are just a different way for the WMF to buy services they already want but can't execute directly, see the indian education program example. The WMF opens a call for bids on some services, entities present offers with prices detailing all the costs, the FDC ensures the cost of each pencil was calculated correctly, then the staff decides what to buy. If there are no good offers, the WMF may eventually just hire someone directly to act locally. The problem is that the WMF constantly (by design) abusing words and rhetoric makes us waste a lot of time because of the misunderstandings it produces. I agree that more information is probably not needed, but a glossary from "official WMF speak" to "concrete clear language" may help.
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants. [...]
This doesn't seem to contradict what Tomasz said.
Nemo
hi Federico,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter,
wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...]
I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter.
well, I think that this part does not leave much for good faith interpretations:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
(cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
Dariusz Jemielniak, 30/04/2013 11:34:
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter,
wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...]
I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter.
well, I think that this part does not leave much for good faith interpretations:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
(cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
That wasn't in the original letter. :) Also, "foul play" doesn't seem to require a "secret anti-WMHK agenda". It was just a convenient way to close a controversial discussion, as you confirm.
Moreover, it's well known that the FDC decisions are based also on "context" i.e. private information not part of the proposals or discussions thereof. It's normal for people outside WMF not to understand them fully, and after all if the rules were so easy to apply you wouldn't need a "double track" decision with FDC+staff with final rubberstamping by the WMF board. It's quite obvious that there will always be room for interpretation, or in other words what made Jan-Bart «impressed with the level of [...] flexibility of the FDC members».
Nemo
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Moreover, it's well known that the FDC decisions are based also on "context" i.e. private information not part of the proposals or discussions thereof. It's normal for people outside WMF not to understand them fully, and after all if the rules were so easy to apply you wouldn't need a "double track" decision with FDC+staff with final rubberstamping by the WMF board. It's quite obvious that there will always be room for interpretation, or in other words what made Jan-Bart «impressed with the level of [...] flexibility of the FDC members».
I'm not sure what you mean by that and how/why it is "well known" (it is not well known to me, we make efforts to make sure that applicants are treated fairly, equally, and not depending on snippets of some private information, although naturally depending on the correspondence, dialogue etc. with the chapter, which to some extent is also not entirely public for obvious reasons).
Tomasz: as I wrote, it is imperative that a CLEAR and UNDERSTANDABLE guideline is prepared :)
best,
dj
I have one general appeal to all new global Wikimedia bodies, including FDC:
Wikimedia movement structure is becoming more complex and it will become just more and more complex. That's very good, as it signals that proper steps have been made regarding our organizational growth.
Presently, we are experiencing problems of increasing complexity. In relation to grants, the structure has been moved from communication with one person to communication with a body, which is still in the process of formation. I suppose that it will be just more complex in the future: FDC will likely create sub-committees at appropriate time and interested groups will have just one more level of communication.
Making that process acceptable and non-frustrating means that the whole structure has to function much more precise, much more clear, with much more responsibility. Otherwise, we'll finish into deadend of unclear and frustrating relations.
I want to say that there will be just more and more situations where a person in the position of power (which could be a WMF employee while handling application of one chapter) doesn't see something as a big deal, as it could be reasonably treated as nothing important from the position of that person, creates at the other side a lot of troubles.
That could be solved by increased empathy: put yourself in the position of someone who asks for grant and think what could they feel if something is worded in some way, or if no options would be given at appropriate point of time. That means that passive decision-making process is not enough; the active approach is necessary; and that makes difference between good and productive relations on one side, and bureaucratic, unclear and frustrating relations on the other one.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
- Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian -- to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0]. I think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about.
- Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time eligibility was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3] and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have _liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK’s proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think "eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1 above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds for recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge the proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the different aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
- I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_ that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this communication did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does mean lacking information was not the issue here.
- Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a successful FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process. WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work, assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta) that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff or _temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I can assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE 2012 in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
- Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only be given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and _impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants Program did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing plans, and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I personally, as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to have the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve this, given certain milestones.
- Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much rather celebrate successes. :)
Asaf[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducation... [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_... -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org