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

[Craig Franklin]

Hi,

I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to
finally reach the surface.  There is no good reason for part of the WMF's
budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest
of movement spending is subjected to.  I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to
accept the FDC's proposal in full.

Regards,
Craig Franklin
(personal view only)


On 22 October 2013 21:00, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl> wrote:

> 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")
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>