[Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hello,

below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds
Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate
in the FDC process.

A little background:

In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013
budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its
current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of
that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and
after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither
by the FDC nor by WMF.

In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014
should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat
to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC
should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF
budget for 2014-2015.

After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key
stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position
regarding WMF participation in FDC process.


best,


Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Subject: WMF in FDC process
To: Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org>


Dear Sue,

I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the
FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on
the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending
cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing
to specific areas, when appropriate).

The advantages of the approach are numerous:

   - It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated,
   - It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested
   in,
   - It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more
   decision power and influence,
   - It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in
   an organized review if the WMF budget.

The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a
special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot
of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically
for the FDC process).

We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for
application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline
shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April
submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in
Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them.

best,


on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee

Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")