Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I would mean something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being informed that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case, we're only dealing with $250,000. What if this was $1 million? $10 million?
I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted before the application is submitted. (And again, I note that we don't know how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, regarding:
"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount."
I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or prepared.
Anthony Cole
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large staff doing lots of things.
I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place. I
would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the request before it was submitted. Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount. I don't
believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance
notification,
though.
Risker/Anne
On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
and
money for our environment and not for an endowment. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org
wrote:
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
sand
and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
Michel
On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
you
are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
When
are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
achieve?
Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she
was
to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
like
it
and that is ok. Thanks, GerardM
On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
questions
that others have asked, I'll add a few:
- If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is
it
not
mentioned in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
?
- I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
relatively
small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for
opacity
about
it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
about
something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
question
of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond
an
encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise
thinking
about
possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
direction,
especially without consulting the community.
- I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
address
those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about
our
movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to
have
those
conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds.
The
recent
round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff
is
making
the situation that much more concerning and that much more
difficult
to
recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control
of
this
situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
Personally,
I
feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships
with
the
staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
restoring
the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
goodwill.
I
think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
interested
to hear your thoughts.
Pine
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
> 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV" sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com
napisał(a):
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi > > Dariusz, > > > > T > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
Wikimedia
> projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is
a]
system
for > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
Internet.
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all open/public > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still
not
a
> general search engine of all content including commercial one. > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our
searches
> across projects. > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on
the
Board
> before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now. > > . > > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
2015–2016
> ($2.4 million) was approved by the board. Can you point us to
which
board > meeting approved it and what was discussed there? > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this
question
by
> going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick). > > Good night! > > Dj > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: 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 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe