Hi,
"initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding
processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
Vince
2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>pl>:
I mean 50 thousand, which positions the
organization I ran at the level of
really small chapters in our movement.
I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming
that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent,
community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the
Foundation).
Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your
further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it
whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't
just
as well as (b) failed attempts.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
means
to justify that to the stakeholders.
The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than
previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).
I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those
individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, service
or
project and are potentially interested or engaged
in the activities,
resources, targets or deliverables".
WMF is one stakeholders.
The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the
associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are
stakeholders and so on.
In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter because
WMF
is *one of the stakeholders*.
And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a decision
like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy in
order to attract stakeholders.
Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk,
the
consequence is that WMF is also declaring to
would be a stakeholder with
less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the
chapter.
This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of biggest
budget.
regards
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
wrote:
> Hi Balazs,
>
> I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion of
the
FDC
> members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but I
was
an
> ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and ran
a
> ~50k annual budget), and I've been on
the funds dissemination board
for
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián <
> balazs.viczian(a)wikimedia.hu> wrote:
>
> > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is more
> > or less on its maximum I think.
> >
> > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the
closest
> > would be credit checks, but that is
like and IEG grant review - it
is
> > pretty far from such a comprehensive
grant - technically a
> > full "business plan" - review)
> >
> > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members,
> > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global
goals,
> > focus points, etc.) and how in general
awful it sounds if you say it
> > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and inexperienced
> > group of people are handling
> > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it
works
> > pretty well.
> >
> > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from such a
> setup.
> >
> > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes
that
> > arise from this "non-professional
system", including a dedicated
> > ombudsperson for the case(s).
> >
> > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are visibly
> > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a real
> > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the
> > "incoherentness" of reviews.
> >
> > Things from this point could be better only through radical changes
to
> > the system imo.
> >
> > Balazs
> >
> > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com>om>:
> > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare
three
> > years,
> > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts.
> > >
> > > I would say that it's *out of context*.
> > >
> > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider
that
> > Amical
> > > is the best example to follow.
> > >
> > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than
other
> > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is
> > surrealistic.
> > >
> > > Ok, nothing to say but:
> > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a
strong
glue
> > within the community
> > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects =
organization
> > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external or
> internal
> > > questions (may be the opposite)
> > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small
> > >
> > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel.
> > >
> > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest to
look
> in
> > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter and
to
check
> > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German
community
> to
> > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been a
good
> > > solution to improve the community
participation to the projects.
> > >
> > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot in
the
> >
biggest projects.
> >
> > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the
diversity
> > and
> > > the Global South but without paying attention that the historical
> > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but
there
are
> > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential"
editors
and
> > the change of the target is not producing a real impact.
> >
> > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget.
> >
> > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the decreasing is
not
> > > beneficial.
> > >
> > > regards
> > >
> > >
> > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore"
<sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
> > >
> > >> Hi Patrik,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the
majority
of
> > the
> > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests to
the
FDC
> >> for
> >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around strategic
> >> planning,
> >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount of
room
> > for
> > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement (including
the
> WMF.)
> > >>
> > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the
largest
>
>> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to deliver
impact
> to
> > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In many
> > instances
> > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to
develop
> and
> > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making
recommendations
>
about
> >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific project or
> program,
> >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an
> organizations
> >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more
complicated
> >> projects.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Warm regards,
> >>
> >> Sydney Poore
> >> User:FloNight
> >> Member FDC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>
--
__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa
http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>