Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal. At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia. My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected. And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration? Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times. Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise. I was wrong. With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again. But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading. I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort. I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and staffing. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html With Wiki-Love, Deryck PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you
are to our movement and you have my sincere respect. I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise, and take a moment for doubt and serious review. Fae (mobile) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions: WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 Erik _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them. That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic
that future generations figure this out On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being > subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always > going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time > to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make > volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed > upon them. > > That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking > a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a > massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make > more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay > on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a > program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? > > Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about > what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look > like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected > vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged > to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are > punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and > experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those > experiences less painful for all involved. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
Hi all
I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Erik Moeller wrote:
>As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK >funding discussions: > >[...] Thanks for the links. I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is unclear to me. MZMcBride [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)
Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here.
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high. What we would need: 1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...) 2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds 3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :) We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of responsability. Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement. Best Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -----Original Message----- From: "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36 To: <[hidden email]> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. > The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK > funding discussions: > > WMHK FDC proposal: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form > > Responses: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? > > FDC round 2 results: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Tilman Bayer Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications) Wikimedia Foundation IRC (Freenode): HaeB _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: > I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the > decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how > decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual > request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? > Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that > round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus. > From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of > text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring > that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where > staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We > encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and > volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers > leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer > activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff > and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth > rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading > to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the > Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved. Anders Secretary of FDC _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Tilman Bayer
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds > might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation? Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong shows WMHK to still be an eligible entity. Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago? --- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC. I would read three main important weaknesses: a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be reduced a lot b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to solve conflicts. It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter. Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European chapters. Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" evaluating it with European parameters! Regards On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote: > > MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: >> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the >> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how >> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual >> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? >> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that >> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? > As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all > proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the > deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ > very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full > funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these > figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, > each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference > still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then > normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. > In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC > members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a > span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed > and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, > and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of > reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we > manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the > way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of > the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same > constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with > consensus. > > >> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of >> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring >> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where >> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We >> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and >> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers >> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer >> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both >> staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their >> growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are >> leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the >> Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? > > The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed > staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but > support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF > as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers > involved. > > Anders > Secretary of FDC > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [hidden email] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread. Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff and FDC members in their comments do. Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations Yes, we're still missing some steps Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created, a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get funds and so made a proposal. But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a regular basis. This is not a "light" process. I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals, fostering Wikimedia community. And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team, we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of the allocation. But we have And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even leaving, you see employees leaving too. I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years ago and left last December. That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful one, but a needed one I believe. Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little reporting? I do not. Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended). I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process the FDC is. As I said in my previous email: * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used with a formal process * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such requests Best, -- Christophe On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. >> The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. > > > This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters > were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted > absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff > decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to > internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes, > ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. > > > - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
Hi Christophe,
> From: [hidden email] > Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 > To: [hidden email] > CC: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone > As I said in my previous email: > * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used > with a formal process Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times. > * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC > or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other > handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way > to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such > requests I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing? Thanks,Abbas. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Christophe, > >> From: [hidden email] >> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200 >> To: [hidden email] >> CC: [hidden email] >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone >> As I said in my previous email: >> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used >> with a formal process > Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times. Not all, and many only for project grants not for operations grants (like part time accounting). This is a flaw of how the process is perceive I think. >> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC >> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other >> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way >> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such >> requests > > I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing? > Thanks,Abbas. GAC is not able to provide grant for a full time employee right now. The only way to get funds for that first employee is through the FDC. Which, as I said earlier, is a really heavy process. That being said, GAC can already provide funds for external contractors on specific tasks, like accounting. Is my rephrasing better? :s -- Christophe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Ilario Valdelli
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each
member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment. And culture context is central for most of us and it is fascinating the broad understanding of cultural context, country specifics and specific chapters operations there exist among the group of us Anders Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-04-29 10:07: > Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses > of the FDC. > > I would read three main important weaknesses: > > a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC > and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific > criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a > feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the > incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of > criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, > the personal opinion should be reduced a lot > b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these > criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and > it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) > c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the > context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the > support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong > because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have > opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies > > I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot > to solve conflicts. > > It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about > "peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter. > > Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make > clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like > the European chapters. > > Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" > evaluating it with European parameters! > > Regards > > On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote: >> >> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: >>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the >>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how >>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual >>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? >>> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that >>> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? >> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all >> proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the >> deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ >> very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends >> full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing >> these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and >> reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the >> difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, >> which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended >> funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions >> among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern >> where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which >> also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a >> recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing >> some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the >> reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we >> are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have >> in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen >> the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement >> with consensus. >> >> >>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of >>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff >>> hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular >>> where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been >>> leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done >>> by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos >>> of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate >>> volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates >>> of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether >>> their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether >>> they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC >>> commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia >>> Foundation (or both)? >> >> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed >> staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but >> support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF >> as well when hey are involved in activities where there are >> volunteers involved. >> >> Anders >> Secretary of FDC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [hidden email] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
> [...] > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...] Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry that you invested so much energy in serving as guinea pig for the FDC process, and I sympathise with your decision: as volunteers, we must focus on what lets us achieve more. It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. On the bright side, experienced and valuable movement members like you and WMHK can always find a way to use their intelligence and have an impact within Wikimedia, despite external obstacles, *if* you don't rely on a blocker/bottleneck outside your wiki/project/chapter/group (it's the wiki way). Applying to FDC proved a mistake but now you and your fellow chapter members can support each other in reassessing priorities and finding a new motivation. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make > Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already > strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more. Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away. - d. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
In reply to this post by Anders Wennersten-2
Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten
<[hidden email]> a écrit: > MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13: >> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the >> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how >> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual >> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or >> is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round >> and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? > As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals > and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation > these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even > that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others > no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very > intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully > paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, > we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a > level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases > there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other > there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the > recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases > we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree > with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So > no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i > believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I > myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved > in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an > agreement with consensus. So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive text about pros and cons of the FDC decision? >> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of >> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring >> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where >> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We >> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and >> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers >> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer >> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff >> and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth >> rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to >> the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia >> chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? > > The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff > should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage > their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are > involved in activities where there are volunteers involved. I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high impact". As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload, they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money, they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities [by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task], and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal system next year as the FDC wants. So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave. Sébastien _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [hidden email] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |