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

Tue Apr 30 08:26:02 UTC 2013

Craig - this is a very good idea!

best,

dariusz ("pundit")

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Craig Franklin
<cfranklin at halonetwork.net>wrote:

> Thankyou Asaf, points 1.1 and 1.2 pretty much answered all my questions on
> this.
>
> If I might offer a humble suggestion though, might I suggest for the
> purposes of determining grant eligibility, rather than saying that it is
> "Confirmed" or "Not Confirmed", a third status of "Conditional Eligibility"
> is introduced.  This status would be used in situations like WMHK's, where
> they are eligible at the beginning of the FDC process but have deliverables
> due before the end of the FDC process that could potentially render them
> ineligible.  This would make it very clear to the entity that while they
> can proceed with their request, they also have to complete some other tasks
> to receive an allocation.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 30 April 2013 13:04, Asaf Bartov <abartov at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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