Thank you, Nikki. Yes, about 70% of the costs were broken down, more or
less. But almost 30% - totalling over US$635,000 - is undifferentiated
"floating capacity" and "administrative costs". Those two amounts,
which
are not broken down by program, total more than any other Wikimedia
movement entity except WMDE has received in the past three rounds.
User:Risker - FDC member
On 24 November 2015 at 10:13, Nicola Zeuner <nicola.zeuner(a)wikimedia.de>
wrote:
Dear Risker, Gerard et al.,
Just a quick correction:
WMDE did indeed provide a detailed cost breakdown for Wikidata costs as
well as other software development costs, down to the activity level, in
table 6b, in the financial section
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikim…
of
the WMDE proposal.
When first FDC member Risker
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/…
and then FDC staff
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/…
asked
about a separation of costs, our response referred them to table 6b, and
clarified that the first *eight* line items cover core Wikidata development
work (the remaining five items cover closely related development and
community activities that support Wikidata).
Hope this helps to inform this discussion.
Thanks,
Nikki Zeuner (WMDE)
Nikki Zeuner
Partnerships and Development
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: 0172 547 1261
US: 1 (520) 743-6801
www.wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
<http://wikimedia.de>
2015-11-24 14:47 GMT+01:00 Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>:
> Hello Gerard -
> The recommended grant for Wikimedia
Deutschland is larger than ever, and
> represents a 42% increase from last year's grant. This is a massive
> increase. Please don't confuse the fact that WMDE did not get everything
> it wanted with whether or not Wikidata is underfunded. Remember, the
> request was not just for Wikidata funding, and despite many attempts by
the
FDC to get precise data on the actual planned
expenses for Wikidata, the
committee was not provided with this information. While the funds
provided
are restricted (in that they can only be spent on
the projects WMDE
applied
for), WMDE can spend the entire amount on
Wikidata if it wants to.
Perhaps
> that is where you might want to turn your attention.
> User:Risker - FDC member
> On 24 November 2015 at 04:02, Gerard
Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > So in essence one of the most relevant development project - Wikidata -
> > that is arguably already underfunded will be even more underfunded and
we
have to
say thank you for doing a good job? Ok.. I thank Wikimedia
Germany
for doing a stellar job. It is an acknowledged
source for inspiration
and I
> have been really happy in all the contacts that I have had with them
over
> > the years.
>
> > It is not up to me to doubt
the sincere efforts of the FDC but I am
> > saddened that while WMF has more cash than that it can spend important
> work
> > is curtailed .. for what? Other development projects are not treated in
> > this way and a great opportunity to do even more is missed as a result.
>
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
>
> > On 24 November 2015 at
03:04, 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.w…
>
> > 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>
_______________________________________________
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>