Dear all,
Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.
Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this information on to people in the wider community.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Gr...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group
Best, Barry
Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far as I can see, is who should be on the committee.
What questions do you want to answer with this long, time consuming and expensive process?
On 9 April 2012 20:08, Barry Newstead bnewstead@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.
Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this information on to people in the wider community.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Gr...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group
Best, Barry
-- Barry Newstead Chief Global Development Officer Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Thomas,
Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?
At the same time this is a good heads up for those that are interesting in providing their expertise to the FDC.
Thank you Barry!
Jan-Bart
On 9 apr. 2012, at 21:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far as I can see, is who should be on the committee.
What questions do you want to answer with this long, time consuming and expensive process?
On 9 April 2012 20:08, Barry Newstead bnewstead@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear all,
Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.
Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this information on to people in the wider community.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Gr...http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group
Best, Barry
-- Barry Newstead Chief Global Development Officer Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10 April 2012 10:02, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?
I don't want to rush it, I want to do it efficiently. I'll ask again, what questions is it that you want to answer with the process?
With anything like this, there are basically three questions:
1) What needs to be done? 2) Who is going to do it? 3) How are they going to do it?
We already know the answer to the first question - it's in the resolution calling for the creation of the committee - and it is usually best to leave the third question for the committee to work out for themselves. That just leaves deciding on the membership. We don't need this lengthy and expensive process to work that out, we just need to go on meta and talk about it until we reach a consensus (or, failing that, until all the relevant points have been made and the WMF board can make a final decision).
12 people spending 4 hours a week, plus meetings including some in-person meetings (which includes lots of expensive travel and accommodation, as well as a lot of time), is an enormous amount of time and money. I think we need to be very clear about what we actually want to achieve with all that time and money.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2012 10:02, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?
I don't want to rush it, I want to do it efficiently. I'll ask again, what questions is it that you want to answer with the process?
With anything like this, there are basically three questions:
- What needs to be done?
- Who is going to do it?
- How are they going to do it?
We already know the answer to the first question - it's in the resolution calling for the creation of the committee - and it is usually best to leave the third question for the committee to work out for themselves. That just leaves deciding on the membership. We don't need this lengthy and expensive process to work that out, we just need to go on meta and talk about it until we reach a consensus (or, failing that, until all the relevant points have been made and the WMF board can make a final decision).
Go here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_G...
12 people spending 4 hours a week, plus meetings including some in-person meetings (which includes lots of expensive travel and accommodation, as well as a lot of time), is an enormous amount of time and money. I think we need to be very clear about what we actually want to achieve with all that time and money.
Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_G...
On 10 April 2012 12:17, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Go here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_G...
Do you really think I would be responding without having read the relevant pages?
Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are completely unnecessary.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2012 12:17, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Go here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_G...
Do you really think I would be responding without having read the relevant pages?
nope. I was giving links for other people.
Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are completely unnecessary.
I was obliquely agreeing with you ;-) f2f meeings are useful, but not for an interim committee.
Hi Thomas
On 10 apr. 2012, at 13:24, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are completely unnecessary.
in your view.
Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.
Jan-Bart
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.
Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason for doing so.
I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working out?
On 10 April 2012 14:09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary?
Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.
Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason for doing so.
I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working out?
Hi Thomas,
Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be wrong.
The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.
For what I understand, Bridgspan is easing the process of starting up the FDC, but the Advisory Group is here to last and oversee and review the FDC on a regular basis. So it's not just a committee to get the FDC started, but to be sure it runs smoothly over the first couple of years.
As, the advisory group will provide guidance and feedback to the FDC, it seems important for the advisory group to be part of the early discussions.
I understand it represents some money to fly ~10 people to SF (though I guess in the end those meetings would match other global meetings such as Wikimedia Conference or Wikimania) every six month, but on the other hand the FDC is gonna be in charge of disseminating ~30million USD, some overseeing/steering group is clearly a need.
However, I agree on one point with you, flying 10 people to SF for a one day meeting is a waste of money/energy. I'd say, if possible, they should have, at least, a 2 days meeting to make the most of the energy/money. But this is details that the Advisory Group will sort out by himself I guess :)
Best,
Christophe
I understand it represents some money to fly ~10 people to SF (though I guess in the end those meetings would match other global meetings such as Wikimedia Conference or Wikimania) every six month, but on the other hand the FDC is gonna be in charge of disseminating ~30million USD, some overseeing/steering group is clearly a need.
I agree with Christophe...
I've consistently been asking the Foundation to make sure the FDC is set up in a transparent way, with involvement from Chapters and other stakeholders. So it makes perfect sense to me to set up an advisory committee to help make sure it sets out down the right path over the next 18 months, even if that entails some financial cost and some use of volunteer time. It's vital to get this right.
Chris (Wikimedia UK board, speaking personally...)
On 10 April 2012 13:25, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be wrong.
The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.
Can you elaborate on what you see as being the "operational details" that need to be defined?
On 10 apr. 2012, at 14:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 10 April 2012 13:25, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be wrong.
The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.
Can you elaborate on what you see as being the "operational details" that need to be defined?
Sure
"just about everything"
as in
1) Who should be on this committee 2) On what kind of requests should they form an opinion (not microgrants for example) 3) What are criteria 4) What is the process/timeline
+ 401 other things that we can come up with as questions.
Jan-Bart
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 10 April 2012 13:56, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sure
"just about everything"
as in
- Who should be on this committee
- On what kind of requests should they form an opinion (not microgrants for example)
- What are criteria
- What is the process/timeline
- 401 other things that we can come up with as questions.
But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate approach then.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate approach then.
Naturally the process should be public and inclusive. I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis. Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings, suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from people who are not active wiki users.
A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a good idea for any time-sensitive project. We don't want to appoint FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as soon as possible.
As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here, even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.
SJ
Hi -
I have created a list of issues to resolve in the FDC process on meta.[1] There are probably additional issues to resolve and it would be great if people would edit the list and start suggesting solutions. IMHO the list of issues is substantial and decisions on the approach to the design will have major implications for entities in the movement. Further, there are time constraints on the FDC process to start functioning quite quickly as entities will want to secure their funding for future fiscal years and I'd personally prefer not to rely on the ad hoc approach that we had last year (since we/I didn't have the capacity to figure out a more structured approach before we were in the middle of the review process).
If we simply select an FDC (btw - how would this happen?) and ask them to figure out the issues for themselves, this would be a recipe for serious challenges that could doom the FDC from the start. A relatively brief, but structured process that is open, has an effective advisory group of trusted people, and is supported by consultants who can give us structure and help us with the heavy-lifting on process design seems like a solid way to get us to a good outcome and help the FDC get off to an effective start.
On the narrow issue of travel to SF for occasional meetings...this is really a practical consideration. There needs to be a time when the Advisory Group can really dig in and help us push to decisions. It would be ineffective to try to do such a meeting by phone or IRC. Per Christophe's point, it might make sense to have this over two days rather than one.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_process_iss...
Best, Barry
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate approach then.
Naturally the process should be public and inclusive. I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis. Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings, suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from people who are not active wiki users.
A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a good idea for any time-sensitive project. We don't want to appoint FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as soon as possible.
As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here, even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.
SJ
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 10 April 2012 17:51, Barry Newstead bnewstead@wikimedia.org wrote:
If we simply select an FDC (btw - how would this happen?) and ask them to figure out the issues for themselves, this would be a recipe for serious challenges that could doom the FDC from the start. A relatively brief, but structured process that is open, has an effective advisory group of trusted people, and is supported by consultants who can give us structure and help us with the heavy-lifting on process design seems like a solid way to get us to a good outcome and help the FDC get off to an effective start.
We would select an FDC by having a discussion on meta about how we think we should select an FDC and then, once we have a consensus, we implement it. That's how we make decisions around, whenever possible. I think we should at least try and reach a consensus rather than just assuming that we need to delegate decision making power to yet another committee.
Can you expand on what you mean by "serious challenges"? Do you mean people will challenge the decisions of the FDC if it isn't spelt out exactly what decisions they should be making and how? In my experience, the opposite is true. If you try and codify exactly what a decision making body is allowed to do then that allows people to challenge it and you end up with situations like the US is facing at the moment with the legislature having passed a law but it's now going through the courts because people are challenging that law.
If you take the British approach of parliamentary sovereignty, that doesn't happen. We elect people to make decisions for us and then we let them make those decisions. If they make bad ones, we elect different people next time. (Of course, we complain constantly about the decisions they are making, but that's just good fun!) With the FDC we would have another safety net in the form of the WMF board's veto.
Everyone agrees that the FDC is going to be a very powerful body, but you are trying to restrict its power as much as possible. It will be far more effective if you just give it the power to make the decisions that it thinks are best. That is, after all, its job.
On 10 April 2012 13:09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working out?
The resolution basically says "there will be a committee, it will be powerful, Sue has a draft and can figure out the details". It doesn't tell us... well, anything else. There are recommendations, but those are *proposals* and the community may decide it strongly objects to parts of them - now is a good time to figure it out. Many of the key details are sketchy.
Some possible questions I can think of, in ten minutes over my lunchbreak: What limits will there be on what the FDC can recommend? What ability will it have to control funding to WMF itself for non-core spending? How independent will it be of either WMF or the chapters? How will it apply to the "non-chaptered" community? Will it be able to decline to fund Board-recommended projects? Do we need to develop alternative structures for funding work in circumstances impractical under US law? And that is before membership becomes an issue. We argued for weeks earlier in the year about chapter-nominated Board seats - who exactly will sit on the FDC? Will they be elected or appointed; what will the mix of community members versus professionals be? Will there be any non-chapter community members? What will be the legal constraints on its membership? Who are the elected members, if any, answerable to?
From my position - and I haven't been following this overly closely, I
admit - the FDC looks like it will be a remarkably powerful body; it will have a major impact on any major project not done directly by WMF. It may not have the same power as the board to set overall goals, but it will have a great deal of de-facto control over the implementation of those goals. A lot of our governance problems (or perceptions of governance problems) stem from the fact that the "movement" evolved organically from a very different thing six or seven years ago, and is perhaps not the organisation we would have designed had we a blank sheet today.
Given all this, it definitely seems a good idea to have a detailed look at how it is going to work rather than just bash something together. I can imagine that if the resolution had said "...and directs the Executive Director to pick six people and have the first meeting in May", there would have been an immense outcry that we *weren't* taking the opportunity to think it through, that it was a power grab, etc etc etc...
I was assuming that the questions were asked to Barry, who would know the answer. I would not presume to do it for him, and I do not know the best answer :)
What I was literally reacting to was your assumption that because no one has told you why it is necessary, it must be unnecessary. I assume that Barry has a good reason for doing things the way he plans to do them. It is fine to ask questions and clarification, but lets assume that he thought about this and has good arguments :)
Jan-Bart
On 10 apr. 2012, at 14:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.
Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason for doing so.
I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working out?
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org