We fully acknowledge the issue with the shortened
AP review this year and
are committed to the 30 day review going forward. Since the overall issue
has been noted since as far back as 2012 we are doing a review of our
process in comparison to the FDC standards to build best practices going
forward. You can add you comments here to help guide the conversation:
Lila
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> wrote:
I likewise appreciate the strong language on the
situation with the WMF;
the general opacity and vagueness of public budget plans (especially
considering the requirements for affiliate organisations in this area) is
something that has been widely noted on this list and elsewhere, and to
my
mind not answered in a satisfactory way. It is good to see a fearless
FDC
that is prepared to "tell it as it is", and make sure that this problem
is
receiving continued attention.
It is my hope that the Foundation will address the issues raised here in
a
constructive and transparent manner, rather than ignoring them or trying
to
spin them away.
Cheers,
Craig
On 24 November 2015 at 12:04, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you FDC.
Many of the small and midsized APG requests fared well in this round.
That
is nice to see.
I find it concerning that the larger the organization, the more
problems
the FDC seemed to find with the org's budget
and performance
management
practices. One would expect the larger
organizations to have mature and
robust practices in these areas. Regarding WMF in particular, my
concerns
about its budget practices are well documented
and I appreciate that
the
FDC is also taking note of the persistence of the
problems. I hope
that WMF
will get serious about its financial
transpatency.
A couple of questions about Wikidata:
I'm confused about the funding for Wikidata. In one place the FDC says
that
"Nonetheless, the FDC is exasperated by the
inability of WMDE to to
disaggregate the costs of Wikidata from other projects." and in another
place the FDC says that "We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE
in
this round with the expectation that WMDE will
not cut Wikidata or
their
other tech development work, but will instead
find cost savings
elsewhere
in its annual plan." If the FDC wants a
disaggregated budget (which is
understandable) then why is the FDC expecting WMDE to dip into its
other
funds and/or make cuts elsewhere in order to
cover the work in this
proposal that the FDC is declining to fund in this proposal? This
expectation seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I'm also wondering how WMDE is able to submit a dedicated request for
restricted funding for Wikidata if the Wikidata project is so
integrated
into WMDE's other budgets that the FDC finds
the integration to be
problematic. Can the FDC or our colleagues at WMDE explain this?
Wikidata is a high profile project with a good reputation, and I hope
that
the issues can be resolved soon.
Thanks,
Pine
On Nov 23, 2015 14:09, "matanya moses" <matanya(a)foss.co.il> wrote:
> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> tl;dr: The FDC’s recommendations for this round of the APG grant
requests
> have now been published at:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2…
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to help
make
> decisions about how to effectively allocate
movement funds to
achieve the
> Wikimedia movement's mission, vision,
and strategy. [1] We met for
four
> days last week in San Francisco to review 11
proposals submitted for
this
> round of funding. [2]
>
> The committee has now posted our Round 1 2015-2016 recommendations
on the
> annual plan grants (APG) to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of
Trustees.
[3]
> The WMF Board representatives to the FDC (Denny Vrandecic, Jan-Bart
de
> Vreede and Dariusz Jemielniak) will lead the
Board in its review of
these
> recommendations. The WMF Board will review
the recommendations and
then
> make their decision on them before 1 January
2016.
>
> This round, the eleven proposals came from ten chapters and one
thematic
> organisation, totaling requests of
approximately $3.8 million USD.
Ten
> affiliates were returning to the APG
program, and one was a new
applicant.
> This round, one organisation requested a restricted grant to support
one
> particular program. All other grant requests
were for general
funding.
>
> Before we met for our face-to-face deliberations, the FDC carefully
> reviewed all proposals and supporting documentation (e.g., budgets,
plans,
> strategies) in detail, aided by staff assessments and analysis on
impact,
> finances, and programs, as well as community
comments on the
proposals.
The
> committee had long and intense conversations about the proposals
submitted
> this round. By listening and carefully considering all available
data,
the
> committee achieved consensus on all proposal deliberations.
>
> In addition to the above, the FDC has also included a recommendation
about
> the WMF itself to improve its own level of planning transparency and
budget
> detail. The WMF staff were not involved in the conception or writing
of
> this additional recommendation.
>
> For your reference, there is a formal process to submit appeals about
> these recommendations or complaints about the FDC process. The
processes
> for both are outlined below.
>
> Any applicant that wants to appeal the FDC’s recommendation about
their
> proposal this round should submit it by
23:59 UTC on 8 December 2015
in
> accordance with the appeal process outlined
in the FDC Framework. A
formal
> appeal to challenge the FDC’s recommendation should be in the form
of a
> 500-or-fewer word summary. The appeal should
be submitted on-wiki,
[4]
and
> must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking applicant.
>
> Complaints about the process can be filed by anyone with the
Ombudsperson,
> and can be made any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki,
as
> well. [5] The ombudsperson will publicly
document the complaint, and
> investigate as needed.
>
> Please take a look at the upcoming calendar [6] to learn about other
> upcoming milestones in the APG program.
>
> Again, we offer our sincere thanks to the 11 organisations who
submitted
> annual plan grant proposals to the FDC this
round.
>
> On behalf of the FDC,
>
> Matanya Moses (FDC chair), User:Matanya
>
> [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG
> [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1
> [3]
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2…
> [4]
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Appeals_to_the_Board_on_the_reco…
> [5]
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_about_the_FDC_process
> [6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Calendar
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be
immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing
list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
_______________________________________________
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
<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>