[Wikimedia-l] Board vote on narrowing focus

Anders Wennersten mail at anderswennersten.se
Fri Nov 2 16:25:40 UTC 2012

the evaluation (coming also
from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to
spend a lot.

This must be a misunderstanding. There is now just two weeks until the 
FDC recommendation for the 12 proposals for round 1 2012 will be 
official where you can judge yourself

Anders W

Ilario Valdelli skrev 2012-11-02 17:14:
> In general I agree with the narrowing focus, but what seems really strange
> to me is that the strategies and in generale the evaluation (coming also
> from FDC) are focused to promote bigger organizations which are able to
> spend a lot.
> Basically there is a weak evaluation costs/benefits. An organization
> spending 30 millions of USD should produce benefits for 30 millions of USD
> and should be evaluated as an organization spending 30 millions of USD. Big
> budget -> stronger evaluation and stronger measures.
> An organization (for instance a small chapter) spending 500K USD should be
> evaluated as an organization spending 500K USD and this organization should
> produce benefits for 500K USD. Small budget -> weak evaluation and flexible
> measures.
> Basically if a small chapter, spending 500K USD, is evaluated using the
> same parameters of WMF, it should spent an additional amount of 500K USD to
> create an organization and a paid staff in order to be able to be evaluated
> at the same level of WMF and to receive the 500K USD for their projects
> (total = 1 million of USD).
> The criteria to evaluate chapters/organizations using the same parameters
> of WMF basically imposes to all applicants a model and this would be a good
> model, but it means that they should hire more people and should spent more
> money.
> Basically the idea to use the grantmaking or the idea to setup a FDC are
> not bad ideas, but these ideas are not supported by a "flexible" system of
> evaluation. The request would impose the same standards of WMF to all
> Wikimedia's organizations, but WMF is spending 30 MUSD plus a percentage of
> the 11,4 MUSD, at the back there is WM DE spending 1,8 MUSD (5% compared
> with the budget of WMF) and WM UK and WM FR (2% compared with the budget of
> WMF), but they are evaluated using the same parameters of WMF.
> My concern is linked to this point. The grantmaking (I include also the
> FDC) may bar the access to the funds for smaller entities.
> This may be a benefit because the control is perfect, but it may be also a
> big damage for the movement because the control may be stifling. There is
> not a "proportionate" control.
> I remember that we discussed a lot during the meetings with WMF about how
> people should manage the changes. The better solution to manage the changes
> is to have a differentiation because the changes may block a lot some kinds
> of organizations and may promote a lot some others. The changes make a
> selection and if all of them are clones, the changes may kill all clones.
> To impose a single model or to impose stronger rules would reduce a lot the
> possibility to have a differentiation and would produce a group of
> organizations which seems to be stronger and better, but essentially it
> will lose the capacity to react to the changes.
> I am not speaking about anarchy, in general I defend a lot the systems of
> control, but a system of control and a system of evaluation should be
> "flexible".
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Anders Wennersten <mail at anderswennersten.se
>> wrote:
>> The Board has earlier decided to give WMF an budget for 2012-2013 for 30,3
>> MUSD for core activities, up from 26,2 the earlier year, mainly engineering
>> and thing like fundraising support.
>> The Board has also set a budget of 11,4 MUSD for activities partly to be
>> disseminated to chapters and to a part to WMF, where Grants make up big
>> part. The total of 11,4 is an increase.

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list