For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with
the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. Then
there was a significant regression with 2014-2015 both in terms of the
review period and in terms of WMF's responsiveness to questions; some
questions from July 2015 still haven't been answered such as how the 40 new
budgeted FTEs align with the overall annual plan. While the compressed
review time was a big problem, I'm actually more disappointed with the lack
of responses to community questions when there has been plenty of time to
respond to them. The change in tone from the WMF after the most recent
statement from the FDC is welcome, and I hope that we'll see meaningful
improvements in transparency going forward. I appreciate the interest of
the Board, the FDC, and Lila in making improvements.
Pine
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and
Katy Love. Thank you
all for your time, attention and care.
/a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
I should have said this earlier: a big thank you
to everyone who worked
on
this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki
pages, it's easy to see
that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent
amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
Michael Peel wrote:
>They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the
>FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a
>proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the
WMF anyway.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia
Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all,
then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a
complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other
entities in the movement."
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the
Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a
different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does
the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct
allocation, bypassing the FDC?
>It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
>- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
>the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education
projects).
It's
particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's
work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to
answer the question asked. :-) Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata ::
Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected
to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the
other be as well?
MZMcBride
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
_______________________________________________
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>