You're right Sydney - not all of them are going to happen. They're worries - hypothetical worries in some cases - but they impact directly on the work I do and it would be wrong of me to not raise them.
In answer to your other points:
- You are right that the alternative of not doing anything or putting it off seems worse. It *is* worse to not do anything. Indeed, this is something I've wanted to do for years (I simply haven't had the time) and I am 100% behind it happening. It is sensible and I will do everything I can to support it. - However, when you say "a group of people taking a run at sorting this out seems like a good first approach" - it is a good first approach, but I worry that the first approach will become the only approach, and that the results will be used even if they're too "rough" to use. This is a huge task and it needs to be right or it runs the risk of damaging the movement. - I don't think this should be done by a formal group of representatives - in my experience committees aren't an amazing way of doing things like this. The team who have been put together seem to be bright young things and I have no doubt that they will do the best job they can - but I think that the first version can be improved with a lot more buy-in from the rest of the movement :-)
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 4 November 2014 19:03, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your view and understand your concerns. But even if all of your worries are true, which I'm not sure is the case, the alternative of not doing anything or putting it off seems worse. A group of people taking a run at sorting this out seems like a good first approach.
And an alternative approach of having all of this work be done by a formal group of representatives of chapters/thematic organizations with the assistance a WMF staff like the Fiance Fellows doesn't really seem to answer the concerns that you raise. And in fact puts more of a burden on the groups.
Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the replies. They've calmed my fears a fair bit, but I'm
still a
little concerned - even simple questions like* "of your administrative costs, **how much were your travel costs"* don't really make a lot of
sense
to us, because some of our travel costs aren't administrative - and we don't track "administrative expenditure" because that term isn't a definition we use, and it's not clearly defined.
This is why we've been having trouble with understanding some Grantmaking/FDC reports in the past - our method of reporting our
financial
information differs from the way that teams at the WMF would like it to
be
presented, because our key definitions differ (not to criticise the grantmaking team, who are very helpful in this regard!)
I think that this project is trying to fix these problems, and it's a commendable effort - but:
- Your team can't create entirely new definitions for organisations
to
report to (because we simply can't afford to increase our finance team to report to another definition - we already report to three different definitions). There is very little appetite in the movement for bigger or more professional finance teams and any big changes to reporting requirements simply won't be possible without more resources going
that
way. 2. Your team may not be able to get all the information they need from participants because participants are simply too busy - in which case, the results of the report will go ahead and be used by the movement even though it may not be accurate or indeed fit for purpose. If the FDC process then goes ahead and uses the report outcomes to ask for financial information, then it means that the inaccurate report will have a direct effect on the metrics we're marked against, and thus a direct effect on movement funding. 3. As WMUK, I fear that the less effort we put into involving
ourselves
in the process, the greater the chance that the final outcome will be
a
poor one for us. This in turn means that this actually has to be something that WMUK put a fair amount of effort into influencing, to ensure that our views are listened to and that the final report is something we can actually report against! I worry about how smaller chapters, like
Ghana,
Ukraine or Hungary - or the fledgling user groups - will manage, if
the
final definitions don't reflect their views at all. 4. You say that if an organisation can't give your team the
information
they want, a phrase will appear in the final report along the lines of "there are concerns about the quality of the data provided by
Wikimedia
UK"... which won't be true, and will be read into by the community as "WMUK has been audited and found wanting"! 5. The report is intended to make data* "consistent, meaningful and comparable among the chapters, thematic organizations, and the Foundation" *- a laudable goal and one I fully support - but it appears that the Foundation aren't being consulted by the Finance Fellows at all. Where will their views and date be taken into account - will they be using the
same
process as everyone else, or a different process? I am not a cynic
and I
don't think that the WMF will use this process to dictate what
reporting
requirements should be, but I do worry that unless the WMF go through the same process, the end result will be relatively easy for the WMF teams to accomplish and rather harder for the rest of us! This increases our back-office costs and makes thorgs appear less efficient when that
won't
necessarily be the case.
I trust the team - they are a group of keen, young, idealistic people -
and
I know that this is going to be done in good faith, but I don't see how
it
can be done fairly without a lot of work from the organisations involved
if they don't get involved, their views won't be reflected.
In order for this to be successful, his has to be a* team effort*, from
all
the financial and project teams (and individuals!) across the world, and
at
present it isn't - and given that this is the first the rest of the movement has heard of the report, it will be very difficult for the rest
of
us to help at such short notice.
I really, really appreciate what you're doing - but I want to be part of this endeavour, and I hope you see my worries!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 31 October 2014 20:46, Michael Guss mguss@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello Liam and Richard,
Let me try to answer some of your questions.
*Do you have an idea of how much work will be required by movement orgs
for
this?*
*Very little actually: it is a matter of simply answering an email
asking,
for instance, out of your "Administrative Costs" listed in your most recent report, how much were your travel costs.* *There will not be
further
paperwork to be submitted. It is the fellows' job to make the final
report,
not the chapters or thematic organizations. Furthermore, we are working with the WMF Grantmaking department as they contribute their expertise
and
their already existing reports. Therefore, we won't be contacting the chapters until we've exhausted our current available resources. Again,
I
want to emphasize that we will not be asking for any additional
paperwork
to be submitted. *
*I worry that your target of 20 January won't be met, as we don't have
the
resources to help revalidate your data at that point of our year.
December
is difficult, as the FDC figures are released then - which is when we
need
to construct our final budget for the next year. January/February is
also
difficult , as all our staff are already pre-booked working on our financial year end of January 31 - which is also an FDC quarter end -
so
there's a lot of work to be done!*
*We completely understand how overwhelming work can be near the end of
the
year and the end of respective fiscal years. The date indicated is not
a
hard deadline, but rather a tentative date the fellows have set
themselves
as a group milestone; by no means is this date a "drop-dead" item. We
fully
appreciate the work our partner organizations conduct and we
acknowledge
the difference in abilities to respond to requests. Hopefully we are
able
to catch the chapters at the most convenient time possible over the
next
few months. Again, we will not reach out until we make certain that the data we intend to find is not already available. *
*Has anyone contacted movement orgs already, perhaps a few months ago?
*No, movement organizations were not contacted about this project
within
the past few months.*
*Will you need to talk to treasurers? If so, please let us know as far
in
advance as you can so we can book dates for meetings!*
*At this time, there is no need to talk to the treasurers. If the there
is
a time, we will contact them as far ahead as possible. *
*What happens if movement orgs do not have time to check your data?
Will
you go ahead with "unvalidated" data in your report, or will you be
able
to
move your timeline to fit with ours?*
*We are here to meet your schedule as best as we can. Given the
six-month
duration of the fellows time here at WMF, we hope to conclude this
project
before the end of March 2015 and to conclude the initial phase of consolidating the data earlier than that. However, we are flexible. Ideally, we would like to validate all the data we receive, but we understand that this may not be the case for every item. We will
indicate
line items that have not been validated in our final report, if need
be.
That said, we appreciate if you are able to help us make the most
accurate
final product possible. *
*How much input will chapters have in the process? who will have the
"final
say" in the comparisons - presumably the WMF? *
*Chapters are strongly encouraged to offer their input throughout the entire process. After all, this project concerns you! Chapters are encouraged to reach out directly via the project's meta page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement-wide_Financial_Report and
the
fellows' pages with their questions, comments, and suggestions. Once we have gathered as much information as possible, we will attempt to consolidate our findings into a single, movement-wide report. Garfield
Byrd
will monitor and determine the viability of the final product, but any product rendered will be the result of the participation of our partner organizations. If there are concerns about the quality of the data then
it
will be highlighted in the report. *
*In response to MZMcBrIde, the user account 'WMF Finance Fellows' will
not
be used to make any edits on any of the Wikimedia projects. *
*Thank you,*
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you Garfield for your quick reply - and with welcome news in
it.
I
am
heartened to see your clarification/confirmation that this project is specifically intending to re-use existing documentation and not to
increase
the "red tape" or compliance-requirements of chapters. Also, as
mentioned
in my first email, I would like to reiterate my support for the idea
that
(especially smaller/newer) chapters have a dedicated contact person.
This
will be very helpful for many.
On the other note I raised, could you/anyone also address whether the chapters had prior-awareness of this new project's existence or
planned
creation before this email announcement?
On Friday, 31 October 2014, Garfield Byrd gbyrd@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Liam:
My apologies for the language you noted, it was not our intent to,
even
inadvertently, to degrade anyone. We fully appreciate the
abilities
of
our
community and I know from my meetings with members of our community
how
smart and engaged they are in a variety of issues impacting the
Wikimedia
movement.
I want to clarify that these Fellows are not auditors. They will
be
working from data as presented by the movement entities. The
project
has
been designed so that the fellows will be using existing data
provided
by
movement entities and the Fellows will only be reaching out to
movement
entities with clarifying questions. So there should be no material increase in staff/volunteer time to provide information for this
project.
If this not the case, please let me know.
Best regards,
Garfield
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
Interesting development. Probably a very good idea for
transparency
and
good use of the movement's money, and consistency of reporting to
make
things comparable is a great goal. I especially think that for
smaller
chapters there is lots of value in having a dedicated contact
person!
But I find the self-description of the Fellows as "an elite group
of
global
operatives"[1] a bit degrading to the rest of us...
I presume it's taken a fair while to recruit the team and scope
the
project
too (I see one linkedin profile which says they've been working
already
for
two months[3]). So, I wonder - did the Chapters who have been
allocated
to
each of these new auditors[2] have any notice that this new
process
was
being created before it was announced today - so they were able
to
make
any
other time-commitments without being surprised by a new layer of
paperwork?
Also, I presume that the increased amount of staff/volunteer time
needed
to
comply with new paperwork will be offset by streamlining this
with
other
WMF-compliance paperwork?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement-wide_Financial_Report#Who_We_Are
[3] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/seyi-olukoya/59/b09/a7
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
-- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) 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 https://donate.wikimedia.org/* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
-- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Michael Guss Research Analyst Wikimediafoundation.org mguss@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe