Thank you Asaf for correcting my facts.
When I said WMIN was denied funding, It was obvious that I was referring to the large chunk of budget that was denied and didn't mean that "no funding was approved". I am glad to see your reply to Gerald's question that I attempted to answer, which you found objectionable.
And thank you for acknowledging my weakness as volunteer, I do not get paid to make edits on wiki and to reply to this email threat unlike other direct or indirect beneficiaries of the WMF money, and hence appreciate your patience in correcting my facts, which ultimately helps me to gain more knowledge. Please bear with my second hand information until my time is paid.
Thanks once again,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Dhaval S. Vyas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I know a chapter in Europe, where probably you come from, which doesn't depend on WMF's grant or funds as it has raised a huge amount on its own. That chapter, WMUK, is still considered WMF chapter if I am not mistaking.This is incorrect. The majority of funds raised by WMUK was raised via the annual wiki-banner-based fundraiser, and is movement funding, granted to WMUK via the FDC process.
Also, the need for WMIN to raise its own funds has arisen because of WMF's FDC's decision to not fund it and fund another private organisation.This is also incorrect. The FDC _did_ recommend to fund WMIN this year, albeit at a much reduced amount. While this is no doubt disappointing to WMIN, it is funding nonetheless, and is at a scale similar to the funding WMIN had received this past year via the Project and Event Grants (PEG) program. And the FDC has _not_ funded another organization (yet). It is currently evaluating a proposal by another organization -- CIS -- but whatever it decides regarding this proposal, it is entirely independent of its decisions, present and future, about proposals from WMIN.
Crucially, the funding CIS is applying to receive (and has been receiving in the past grant), is _by no means_ at the expense of WMIN, nor vice versa. There is enough money to fund both organizations' work in India, to the degree they propose compelling program plans.
This is not a zero-sum game, and money granted to organization A is not at the expense of organization B. While the total "envelope" of funds the FDC has to allocate is finite, it has never been the case so far that organization A was short-changed despite a compelling plan because money has run out due to funding organization B.
I hope this helps you to understand what's being discussed.Actually, these repeated half-truths are no doubt making it more difficult for those reading these discussions to understand. I recognize that you are all volunteers and don't have the time (or inclination) to closely follow the Annual Plan Grants (FDC) process or to double-check your statements about what past practice has been, and I gladly undertake to provide accurate information where corrections are needed. But I would encourage you all to either make more of an effort to get your facts right in advance of making a statement (rather than relying on second-hand accounts), _or_ to favor asking questions to making assertions, to avoid misleading responses such as the one above. (I allege no bad faith here, of course!)
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l