[Wikimedia-l] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Anna Stillwell
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Anna,
>
> >> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >
> >
> >We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
> Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
> cost,
> and from what source are the funds being drawn?
>
>
> >> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >> perspective.
> >>
>
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
> > We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
> a
> > lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> > say it.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> >
> > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> > the strategy process?
> >
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax.


WMF's standards are not lax. Far from it.


> This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Pine,
> >
> > Good evening. In line.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> > would
> > > like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >
> >
> > First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design.
> We
> > had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> > first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> learn
> > to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> >
> > We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
> > and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> > translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> seen
> > all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> > it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> >
> >
> > > * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> > > source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> > > decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> > > funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >
> >
> > We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> > of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >
> >
> > > * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> > > who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > > Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > > perspective.
> > >
> >
> > The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> > told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> > affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> > We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning
> a
> > lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> > say it.
> >
> > >
> > > * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> > in
> > > the strategy process?
> > >
> >
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > Always good to hear from you,
> > /a
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Pine W
What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
specific enough answer?


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
> > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
> very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Rogol Domedonfors
Robert,

Budget control is not just accounting.  When a process that employs a lot
of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
whichever happens first.  This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.

"Rogol"

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
> believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
> procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
> measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
> regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
> do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
> specific enough answer?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> satisfied.
> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems
> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Amir Sarabadani-2
Pine, Weren't you the person who pushed for months consult and interview
and design when I wanted to make mediawiki colors 5% brighter? How come
deciding on future of Wikimedia movement is too expensive?

Best

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Budget control is not just accounting.  When a process that employs a lot
> of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
> then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
> Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
> in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
> are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
> that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
> and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
> whichever happens first.  This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
> it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
> > believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
> > procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
> > measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
> > regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
> > do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
> > specific enough answer?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within
> our
> > > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> > detail
> > > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
You're right, it is way too much weight to assign to it.  It's a perfectly
reasonable statement that can be read as "The fact that we are under budget
is a sign that our normal fiscal controls are working" so I'm baffled that
it is being interpreted as "We don't care what we spend money on at all as
long as it is under this arbitrary number".

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Robert,
>
> Budget control is not just accounting.  When a process that employs a lot
> of staff and contractor time was planned to take some period of time and is
> then extended, then yes, that is a reason to ask about control of costs.
> Anna alludes to one method of budget control – "We have plenty of measures
> in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need to control them because they
> are not out of control, we are within our budget)." – which sounds like
> that old-fashioned method in which you assign a sum of money to an activity
> and stop that activity when it is finished or when the money runs out,
> whichever happens first.  This would not now be best practice, but perhaps
> it is unfair to place too much weight on a passing comment.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
>> What kind of answer are you expecting here?  Do you have any reason to
>> believe that the WMF is not acting within its normal fiscally responsible
>> procedures in the particular case of the movement strategy process?  What
>> measures to control costs do you believe they are or are not taking in
>> regards to the strategy process?  Why is "the regular accounting stuff we
>> do all the time with millions of dollars of donor money every year" not a
>> specific enough answer?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
>> need
>> > > to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> > > budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
>> detail
>> > > would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>> >
>> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
>> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
>> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
>> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
>> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
>> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
>> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
>> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
>> satisfied.
>> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
>> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
>> seems
>> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Gregory Varnum-4
In reply to this post by Pine W
Pine,

A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.

Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).

On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board), three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.

You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.

• 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
• 2: Number of Board members now involved
• 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
• 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
• $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just salary)

Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.

We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it was written.

Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)



> On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi Anna,
>
>>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>>
>>
>> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>
> Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected to
> cost,
> and from what source are the funds being drawn?
>
>
>>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>>> perspective.
>>>
>
>> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
>> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
>> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
>> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
>> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>
>> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
>> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
>> say it.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
>>
>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in
>> the strategy process?
>>
>
>> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
>> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
>> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>
> I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> than the level of detail with which I previously would have been satisfied.
> My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something seems
> very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Pine,
>>
>> Good evening. In line.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
>> would
>>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
>>>
>>
>> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by design. We
>> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
>> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would learn
>> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
>>
>> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized groups
>> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
>> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've seen
>> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
>> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
>>
>>
>>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
>>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that the
>>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
>>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
>>>
>>
>> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and all
>> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
>>
>>
>>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for people
>>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
>>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
>>> perspective.
>>>
>>
>> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder groups
>> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
>> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
>> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are non
>> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
>>
>> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are learning a
>> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time to
>> say it.
>>
>>>
>>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
>> in
>>> the strategy process?
>>>
>>
>> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't need
>> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
>> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
>> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
>>
>> Always good to hear from you,
>> /a
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Rogol Domedonfors
Greg and Anna

This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community what was
happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
multi-million dollar project.

Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more information you
share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
help you.

"Rogol"

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Pine,
>
> A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
>
> Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> 2018).
>
> On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on the
> cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g., calling
> our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the Board),
> three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
>
> You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> this request thus far in the service of transparency.
>
> • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> salary)
>
> Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> why we have established processes.
>
> We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that it
> was written.
>
> Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
>
>
>
> > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Anna,
> >
> >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >>
> >>
> >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >
> > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension projected
> to
> > cost,
> > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> >
> >
> >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >>> perspective.
> >>>
> >
> >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > groups
> >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >
> >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> learning a
> >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> >> say it.
> >
> > OK, that makes sense.
> >
> >>
> >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> in
> >> the strategy process?
> >>
> >
> >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >
> > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> satisfied.
> > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> seems
> > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Pine,
> >>
> >> Good evening. In line.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> >>> conversation.
> >>>
> >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> >> would
> >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> >>>
> >>
> >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> design. We
> >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared direction
> >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> learn
> >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> >>
> >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
> groups
> >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> >> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> seen
> >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> >> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> >>
> >>
> >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from what
> >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> the
> >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of the
> >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process and
> all
> >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> >>
> >>
> >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> people
> >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> >>> perspective.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> groups
> >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> non
> >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> >>
> >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> learning a
> >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more time
> to
> >> say it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control costs
> >> in
> >>> the strategy process?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> need
> >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of detail
> >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> >>
> >> Always good to hear from you,
> >> /a
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Rogol Domedonfors
In reply to this post by Anna Stillwell
Anna

Thank you for that and for writing it on a Sunday.  Unfortunately I missed
it originally in the two dozen messages in this thread.  You mention the
names of individuals outside the US who are helping and that is good to
see.  By "consultants" I meant the companies hired to help you, such as
Lake Research Partners, Wellspring Insight, Dot Connector Studio and Lutman
& Associates – probably I should have said "consultancies".

"Rogol"

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Anna Stillwell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Rogol,
>
> The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
> on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
>
> There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
>
>    - organized groups
>    - on-wiki
>    - experts
>    - new voices
>
> I’d like to introduce this list to some of the members of the team.
>
>    - Organized groups is run by *Nicole Ebber*, who many of us know
>    previously from her ongoing international work for Wikimedia
> Deutschland.
>    She is a wonderfully thoughtful contributor to the movement and a lover
> of
>    craft beer. She joins us from Berlin where she is based.
>
> New Voices has been a collaboration with different stakeholders in
> different markets.
>
>    - *Adele Vrana* leads the New Voices team and runs focus groups in
>    Brazil, where she is originally from. She is US-based now.  Adele has
> grown
>    from an individual contributor at the foundation to a Director through
> her
>    innate competence, hard work, and deep passion for the mission.
>
>
>    - *Uzo Iweala* is running focus groups in Nigeria. He is born, raised,
>    and residing in Nigeria. Uzo is an award-winning author and a medical
>    doctor. He also has a unique view into Nigeria and a nuanced mind. We’ll
>    need that. Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
>
>
>    - *Ravishankar Ayyakkannu* is running focus groups in India. Ravi is
>    born, raised, and residing in India. He has worked with the Global
>    Partnerships team for some time now. I've read the reports from his
> group.
>    Ravi is so enthusiastically engaged in his communities.
>
>
>    - I have not checked these next ones, as I prioritized timeliness, but I
>    believe *Jack Rabah*, a Jordanian based in Jordan is running groups in
>    MENA. If you have not met Jack, then your life is not as good as it
> could
>    be. He has played a pivotal role in our partnerships throughout the
> Middle
>    East.
>
>
>    - And I know that *Jorge Vargas*, a Colombian lawyer who made the leap
>    from legal to global partnerships and never looked back, has been
> involved
>    in all of this as well.  He has served the foundation well over a
> number of
>    years, but the names of the countries escape me at the moment.
> Perdoname,
>    Jorge.
>
> These people continue to organize communities of stakeholders, convene
> them, ask them about their communities and knowledge, and then listen.
>
> One of the reasons we've extended the timeline on movement strategy is
> because the insights they are bringing forward are so rich we think we all
> need more time to reflect upon them and integrate them into all existing
> community discussions.
>
> For the on-wiki team:
>
>    - We invested into ongoing translation in 17 languages throughout this
>    process. That team is managed by *Jan **Eissfeldt*, who is based between
>    Taiwan (is that right, Jan?) and Spain.
>
> Just to clarify the record.
> /a
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > This is not surprising, when the Foundation and all the external
> > consultants advising it on this exercise are all US-based.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Leinonen Teemu <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hej,
> > >
> > > Gerard made some very important points. My observation (not an opinion
> > :-)
> > > is also that the initiatives in, and with a focus on, global south are
> > > under served. They are more difficult to do, because of various
> reasons,
> > > but this should not be a reason not to do them. It is also true that
> > large
> > > majority of research on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is about the en-Wikipedia.
> If
> > > WMF could do something to promote research looking  beyond it would be
> > > great.
> > >
> > > -Teemu
> > >
> > > > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> kirjoitti 24.6.2017
> kello
> > > 13.00:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The one serious flaw of the current practice is that English
> Wikipedia
> > > > receives more attention than it deserves based on its merits[1]. This
> > > bias
> > > > can be found in any and all areas. There is for instance a huge
> > > educational
> > > > effort going on for English and there is no strategy known,
> developed,
> > > > tried to use education to grow a Wikipedia from nothing to 100.000
> > > > articles.. the number considered to be necessary by some to have a
> > viable
> > > > Wikipedia. When you consider research it is English Wikipedia because
> > > > otherwise it will not get published [2].
> > > >
> > > > A less serious flaw is that the WMF is an indifferent custodian of
> > > projects
> > > > other than Wikipedia. When it provides no service to Wikipedia like
> > > > Wikisource, its intrinsic value is not realised to the potential
> > readers
> > > > that are made available. There is no staff dedicated to these
> projects
> > > and
> > > > there is no research into its value.
> > > >
> > > > The angst for the community means that there is hardly any
> > collaboration
> > > > between the different Wikipedias. Mostly the "solutions" of English
> > > > Wikipedia are imposed. There are a few well trodden paths that
> > habitually
> > > > get attention. When it comes to diversity, the gender gap is well
> > served
> > > > but the global south is not. A lot of weight is given to a data
> driven
> > > > approach but there is hardly enough data relevant to the global south
> > in
> > > > English Wikipedia to make such an approach viable.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have tried to get some attention for these issues in the
> process
> > > so
> > > > far but <grin> as bringer of the bad news I am happy that it is the
> > > message
> > > > and not the messenger who is killed </grin>.
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me I am wrong and proof it by using more than opinions.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >       GerardM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] less than 30% of the world populace and less than 50% of the WMF
> > > > traffic.
> > > > [2] comment by a professor whose university does a lot of studies on
> > > > Wikipedia..
> > > >
> > > >> On 24 June 2017 at 12:33, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Strainu <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2017-06-23 23:48 GMT+03:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> > > >>>> Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > > people
> > > >>> who
> > > >>>> are not involved with affiliates?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Starting from this assumption, and considering the fact that even
> the
> > > >>> most active wikimedians (not involved in a chapter) have real life
> > > >>> commitments that do not allow them to follow this process
> carefully,
> > > >>> it is obvious that the main responsibility of the team that
> > > >>> coordinates the process should have been outreach. In my particular
> > > >>> geographic area, Track B contributors were engaged with only 2
> weeks
> > > >>> prior to the end of the last cycle, which is hardly enough time to
> > > >>> read, understand, and think about the vast quantity of material
> > > >>> available in the strategy process.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am an active Wikimedia not involved in a Chapter. In Round 1, I
> was
> > > >> pretty active, and in the Russian Wikivoyage we collected quite some
> > > >> feedback and translated it into English. It was essentially ignored.
> > > None
> > > >> of us participated in Round 2 since we thought it is a waste of
> time.
> > > Round
> > > >> 2 was organized in the same way as Round 1 (many discussions opened
> i
> > n
> > > >> different places, meaning there is no possibility to really discuss
> > > >> anything, merely to leave one's opinion). I have corresponding pages
> > on
> > > 3
> > > >> projects on my watchlists (with is 15 pages, and this is a lot),
> but I
> > > have
> > > >> not seen in these discussions anything new not said before in Round
> 1.
> > > May
> > > >> be smth useful would come out from other tracks, but I am not really
> > > >> looking forward to Track B Round 3 either. I believe it is
> completely
> > > >> failed, and individual contributors did not have a chance to form a
> > > >> considated opinion. The message for me is essentially: If you want
> to
> > be
> > > >> heard, find a chapter or a thematic organization first. I hope the
> > next
> > > >> process will be organized differently in 10 years from now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers
> > > >> Yaroslav
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=
> unsubscribe>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Rogol Domedonfors
>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the value of
> transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community what was
> happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place itself and the
> community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours of staff time (ten
> hours – really?) explaining that you are not going to explain the
> Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control over this
> multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible question
> about a point of financial management you will be more ready, willing and
> able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the community and
> pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more information you
> share with the community, the more acceptance, goodwill and trust you will
> build in that community, and, the better placed the community wil be to
> help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number of
> > things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for expenses
> > related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June
> > 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on this. I
> > imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with which you went
> > from asking for financial details when we have ample financial oversight,
> > to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and a
> > demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the cost of
> > this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior leaders
> > • 2: Number of Board members now involved
> > • 1.5 hours: Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far
> > • 10 hours: Estimated amount of staff time spent thus far
> > • $1,500: Estimated cost of staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided not to
> > provide that response because we have ample financial oversight and we
> > would like not to set a precedent of spending resources discussing this
> > level of detail on financial matters. You are a valued member of this
> > community, and this is not the best way for us to work together. That is
> > why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >
> > > OK, that makes sense.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > in
> > >> the strategy process?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are within
> > > budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to the budget
> > > are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to hear that WMF's
> > > standards for its finances are so lax. This convinces me all the more
> > > that my original request is important for WMF to answer: please discuss
> > > what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much higher
> > > than the level of detail with which I previously would have been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello Pine,
> > >>
> > >> Good evening. In line.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying reading the
> > >>> conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier post, I
> > >> would
> > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > design. We
> > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> direction
> > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we would
> > learn
> > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > >>
> > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all fronts--organized
> > groups
> > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time for
> > >> translation and conversation) and new voices and experts (e.g., "we've
> > seen
> > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect upon
> > >> it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses from
> > >>> Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to hear WMF's
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 stakeholder
> > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are earnestly
> > >> engaged in thinking about the future, and that they need more time for
> > >> translation and conversation on this important subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >>
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > >> in
> > >>> the strategy process?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are within our
> > >> budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >>
> > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > >> /a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pine
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >>> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Peter Southwood
Robert,
What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
>initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the
> value of transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community
> what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place
> itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours
> of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going
> to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control
> over this multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible
> question about a point of financial management you will be more ready,
> willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the
> community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more
> information you share with the community, the more acceptance,
> goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better
> placed the community wil be to help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number
> > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for
> > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over
> > Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 -
> > June 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more
> > on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on
> > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with
> > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample
> > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and
> > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the
> > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior
> > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours:
> > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated
> > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of
> > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided
> > not to provide that response because we have ample financial
> > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending
> > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You
> > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way
> > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith
> > that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > >> stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >
> > > OK, that makes sense.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > in
> > >> the strategy process?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are
> > > within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to
> > > the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to
> > > hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This
> > > convinces me all the more that my original request is important
> > > for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much
> > > higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have
> > > been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation.
> > > Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello Pine,
> > >>
> > >> Good evening. In line.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying
> > >>> reading the conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier
> > >>> post, I
> > >> would
> > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > design. We
> > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> direction
> > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we
> > >> would
> > learn
> > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > >>
> > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all
> > >> fronts--organized
> > groups
> > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time
> > >> for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts
> > >> (e.g., "we've
> > seen
> > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect
> > >> upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > >> stakeholder
> > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >>
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
> > >>> control
> costs
> > >> in
> > >>> the strategy process?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >>
> > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > >> /a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pine
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscr
> > >>> ibe>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscri
> > >> be>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Rogol Domedonfors
Robert

I speak only for myself, as I presume do you.  I make observations that
relate to the Foundation, the wider Community and their interactions, as I
presume do you.  I sometimes comment on those matters here, as do you.

"Rogol"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Robert,
> What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia
> movement strategy process (#19)
>
> >By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening
> >initially,
>
> Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that
> their response was quite clear.
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Greg and Anna
> >
> > This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the
> > value of transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community
> > what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place
> > itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours
> > of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going
> > to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control
> > over this multi-million dollar project.
> >
> > Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible
> > question about a point of financial management you will be more ready,
> > willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the
> > community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more
> > information you share with the community, the more acceptance,
> > goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better
> > placed the community wil be to help you.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum
> > <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pine,
> > >
> > > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to
> > > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number
> > > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> > >
> > > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> > > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for
> > > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over
> > > Fiscal Year
> > > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 -
> > > June 2018).
> > >
> > > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more
> > > on
> > the
> > > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> > calling
> > > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> > Board),
> > > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on
> > > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with
> > > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample
> > > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> > >
> > > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly,
> > > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and
> > > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the
> > > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> > >
> > > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior
> > > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours:
> > > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated
> > > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of
> > > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > > salary)
> > >
> > > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require
> > > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided
> > > not to provide that response because we have ample financial
> > > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending
> > > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You
> > > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way
> > > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> > >
> > > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our
> > > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith
> > > that
> > it
> > > was written.
> > >
> > > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anna,
> > > >
> > > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > > >>> from
> > what
> > > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > > >>> that
> > > the
> > > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > > >>> of
> > the
> > > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > > >> process
> > and
> > > all
> > > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > > >
> > > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> > projected
> > > to
> > > > cost,
> > > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > > >>> for
> > > people
> > > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > > >> stakeholder
> > > > groups
> > > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > > non
> > > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > > >
> > > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > > learning a
> > > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > > >> more
> > time
> > > to
> > > >> say it.
> > > >
> > > > OK, that makes sense.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> > costs
> > > in
> > > >> the strategy process?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > > >> don't
> > > need
> > > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > > >> lower level of
> > detail
> > > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are
> > > > within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to
> > > > the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to
> > > > hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This
> > > > convinces me all the more that my original request is important
> > > > for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to
> control costs in the strategy process.
> > > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much
> > > > higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have
> > > > been
> > > satisfied.
> > > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF
> > > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation.
> > > > Something
> > > seems
> > > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello Pine,
> > > >>
> > > >> Good evening. In line.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying
> > > >>> reading the conversation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier
> > > >>> post, I
> > > >> would
> > > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > > design. We
> > > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> > direction
> > > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we
> > > >> would
> > > learn
> > > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > > >>
> > > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all
> > > >> fronts--organized
> > > groups
> > > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time
> > > >> for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts
> > > >> (e.g., "we've
> > > seen
> > > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect
> > > >> upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and
> > > >>> from
> > what
> > > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume
> > > >>> that
> > > the
> > > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source
> > > >>> of
> > the
> > > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this
> > > >> process
> > and
> > > all
> > > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change
> > > >>> for
> > > people
> > > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses
> > > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to
> > > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4
> > > >> stakeholder
> > > groups
> > > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are
> > > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they
> > > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important
> > > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > > non
> > > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > > >>
> > > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > > learning a
> > > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need
> > > >> more
> > time
> > > to
> > > >> say it.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to
> > > >>> control
> > costs
> > > >> in
> > > >>> the strategy process?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we
> > > >> don't
> > > need
> > > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are
> > > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any
> > > >> lower level of
> > detail
> > > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > > >> /a
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Pine
> > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > >>> [hidden email]
> > > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscr
> > > >>> ibe>
> > > >>>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscri
> > > >> be>
> > > >>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
staff.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.

Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.

> Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).

Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
start. How much is the timeline extension projected
to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an
analysis of the cost of the extension was done
before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.

I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other
issues that have come up.

Thanks,

Pine


On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
> approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
> posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
> and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
> to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
> to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
> holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
> holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
> should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
> staff.
>
> Pine
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#19)

Pine W
Hi WMF folks,

I'm still waiting for a reply to this question.

Pine


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Having had time to reflect further on this matter, I'm having difficulty
> with writing a comprehensive reply in a civil tone.
>
> Rather than try to address multiple topics at once, I'd like to start by
> following up on a single topic. I'm hoping that this
> will help to keep the conversation focused and civil.
>
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and
> Board, the Board approved a spending resolution
> > last year for expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5
> million over Fiscal Year 2016-17 (July 2016 - June
> > 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - June 2018).
>
> Thanks for providing the project budget number, which is a good place to
> start. How much is the timeline extension projected
> to cost, and from what source are the funds being drawn? I imagine that an
> analysis of the cost of the extension was done
> before the extension was authorized, and that a funding source was
> identified. I hope that WMF can provide that information
> and that only a few minutes of staff time will be necessary to publish it.
>
> I'm hoping that we can address this topic first, and then move on to other
> issues that have come up.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I have stayed away from this thread for awhile with the hope that I can
>> approach it in a businesslike tone. I want to acknowledge those who have
>> posted previously. I have drafted a response to the email that Greg sent,
>> and out of respect for the holiday for US staff I'll wait until Wednesday
>> to send that response. This matter is important, but I don't want WMF staff
>> to feel like they need to think about this or respond to it during a
>> holiday weekend. There will be time enough for more discussion after the
>> holiday. I'm not trying to close off discussion, but I thought that I
>> should explain why I'm planning to wait a few days before responding to
>> staff.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12