[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Fri Nov 16 08:09:14 UTC 2012

Hey Lodewijk,

No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were
to be sure I understood correctly what you meant.

I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the
FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so
chapters can improve from on request to the next one.

That being said, I'm ok with the level of detail of the current
recommendation. I mean, when I read the other chapters recommandation,
I understood why the FDC make the recommandation they did. Do you have
a specific case where it is not clear?

PS: My questions are really that questions, as I'm part of the FDC
Advisory Group the answers/feedback do really interest me :)
--
Christophe

On 15 November 2012 23:56, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> I would like to see that
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains
> a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made.
> Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be
> improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general.
> In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1)
> they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But
> it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit
> etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the
> opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no
> committee decision.
>
> Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust
> that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a
> sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the
> specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but
> I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on
> what led to these decisions.
>
> But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any
> further information published by the committee (not: individual members)
> that I might be missing?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/11/15 Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com>
>
>> What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more
>> arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
>>
>> I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as
>> the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to
>> have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
>>
>> Am I understanding your comment correctly,
>> --
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>> On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:
>> > Hi Dariusz,
>> >
>> > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do
>> regret
>> > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee
>> > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
>> > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
>> > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
>> > applicant?), state so. Etc.
>> >
>> > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
>> > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
>> > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.
>> >
>> > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
>> > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
>> > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
>> > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback
>> for
>> > the next round.
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Lodewijk
>> >
>> > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>
>> >
>> >> hi Lodewijk,
>> >>
>> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
>> >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
>> >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
>> >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was
>> justified
>> >> either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
>> >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth,
>> which
>> >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
>> >> reserves, etc.
>> >>
>> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
>> >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
>> >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2.
>> When
>> >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
>> >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
>> >>
>> >> best,
>> >>
>> >> dj
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Dariusz,
>> >>>
>> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
>> >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
>> to
>> >>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
>> personally
>> >>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
>> information
>> >>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
>> technicality is
>> >>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
>> >>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
>> >>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
>> >>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>> >>>
>> >>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
>> was
>> >>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
>> find
>> >>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
>> >>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
>> to
>> >>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
>> depth
>> >>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
>> recommendation in
>> >>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
>> >>> applications.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
>> >>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
>> such
>> >>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
>> >>> arguments are so shallow.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
>> >>> the cases.
>> >>>
>> >>> Kind regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Lodewijk
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>
>> >>>
>> >>>> hi Lodewijk,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>> >>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
>> planning
>> >>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
>> great
>> >>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>> >>>> methodology.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>> >>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
>> maximum
>> >>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
>> deducted
>> >>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
>> FDC
>> >>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
>> and the
>> >>>> organization incorporated).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
>> >>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
>> what
>> >>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and
>> >>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
>> rigor in
>> >>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget
>> >>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
>> >>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
>> >>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
>> can
>> >>>> grow more harmoniously.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> dariusz
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
>> lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>> >>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
>> every
>> >>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Kind regards,
>> >>>>> Lodewijk
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede at wikimedia.org>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi Everyone
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
>> post
>> >>>>>> created earlier today.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>> >>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating
>> chapters. As
>> >>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
>> and we
>> >>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
>> expectations
>> >>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jan-Bart
>> >>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >>>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>
>> >>>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>> >>>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>> >>>>>> > To: wikimediaannounce-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>> >>>>>> announce
>> >>>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>> >>>>>> 2012-13.
>> >>>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>> >>>>>> recommendations by
>> >>>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
>> for
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
>> >>>>>> from 11
>> >>>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
>> were
>> >>>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>> >>>>>> decided
>> >>>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late
>> proposals
>> >>>>>> would
>> >>>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
>> and
>> >>>>>> FDC
>> >>>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>> >>>>>> proposals
>> >>>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>> >>>>>> goals.
>> >>>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
>> >>>>>> San
>> >>>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>> >>>>>> discussed
>> >>>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>> >>>>>> applying
>> >>>>>> > entity.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
>> the
>> >>>>>> process
>> >>>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>> >>>>>> works in
>> >>>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>> >>>>>> provide
>> >>>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
>> these
>> >>>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>> >>>>>> on-wiki
>> >>>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
>> >>>>>> in our
>> >>>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>> >>>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>> >>>>>> should be
>> >>>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>> >>>>>> complaint
>> >>>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>> >>>>>> Operation of
>> >>>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
>> >>>>>> summary
>> >>>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
>> FDC
>> >>>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>> >>>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
>> >>>>>> portal page
>> >>>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>> >>>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
>> WMF
>> >>>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>> >>>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of
>> a
>> >>>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>> >>>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>> >>>>>> submission of
>> >>>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
>> >>>>>> UTC
>> >>>>>> >   November 22)
>> >>>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
>> filing
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>> >>>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in
>> an
>> >>>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only
>> in
>> >>>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to
>> release
>> >>>>>> extra
>> >>>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>> >>>>>> allocated by
>> >>>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>> >>>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>> >>>>>> investigation if
>> >>>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > [1]
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > [2]
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > [3]
>> >>>>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > [4]
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > [5]
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > --
>> >>>>>> >
>> >>>>>> > __________________________
>> >>>>>> > dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> >>>>>> > profesor zarządzania
>> >>>>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> >>>>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>> >>>>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> >>>>>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>> >>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> >>>>>> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>>> > Unsubscribe:
>> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> >>>>>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> __________________________
>> >>>> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> >>>> profesor zarządzania
>> >>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> >>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>> >>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> >>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> __________________________
>> >> dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> >> profesor zarządzania
>> >> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> >> i centrum badawczego CROW
>> >> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> >> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l