[Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions

Tue Apr 30 03:04:05 UTC 2013

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%2FEducation_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies%2FReport&diff=5285395&oldid=5237667
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report

[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2

[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start

[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not_approved
-- 
    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