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%2FEducatio… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Li… [3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikim… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_ro… [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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

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.

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.

[...] 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 [...]

[...] 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. [...]

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.

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.)

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».

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%2FEducatio… [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Li… [3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikim… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_ro… [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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l