[Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
82 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Everton Zanella Alvarenga-3
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

That is interesting. And I think it is related to some questions I
made during the FDC meeting during the Wikimedia Conference. [1]

* (Tom - WMF) How will FDC find a balance between the money that will
go to organizations from the Global South (GS) and Global North (GN)
in the mid to the long term? It is well known the bad distribution of
formal groups in these two places, having a bigger concentration in
the GN. [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

*(Tom - WMF) Measure of success: feedback to be parked. How to
distinguish the measure of success when it comes to different
backgrounds? Sometimes a small language Wikipedia can have a completly
different measure than the English version, for instance. How to
handle that? [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]

And the second question for me is really important for me based on my
experience working for almost 1,5 year for the catalyst program in
Brazil.

These questions were going to be answered on Sunday and after would be
added on meta.

P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.

[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process

Tom

--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
"A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
useful than a life spent doing nothing."

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
David Gerard, 29/04/2013 11:16:

> On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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.

I think Erik may have unsubscribed well before that, but luckily I got
off the list years ago so I don't know the details. ;-)
But yes, this is my point: as someone noted in the thread on internal
wiki, "no place to work together" is the current default for WMF. If
you're strong enough in your "market" or area of expertise, you can
negotiate a partnership with WMF on some matters or programs (going from
the simplest, e.g. a joint blog post, to the hardest, e.g. a FDC grant),
and have some communication and joint work between you and (part of) the
WMF. But in general, IMHO, it's better for one's own health to recognise
that WMF is an external entity more or less as much as Apple, the EU or
an oil company would be: first you develop your own strengths and then
you go to the negotiations if you need to and have something to gain.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Craig Franklin
In reply to this post by Thehelpfulone
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
(which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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_Kongshows 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Deryck Chan-2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Deryck Chan" <[hidden email]>
Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
to everyone
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>

See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
> it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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_KongshowsWMHK 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Thehelpfulone
Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?

Sent from my iPhone

---
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone

On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Deryck Chan" <[hidden email]>
> Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> to everyone
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
>
> See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
> new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
>> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
>> it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
>> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
>> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
>> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>>
>> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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_KongshowsWMHK 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Christophe Henner
hi,

I whole-heartily agree with many of Christophe's comments. Whenever
possible, GAC should take precedent before the FDC in my opinion. The FDC
should typically involve those entities, which have grown significantly
(often also through part-time staff hired for specific projects well
before).

Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of
evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is
my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant
projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to
support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve
on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic
method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with
high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw,
there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than
in the FDC).

The level of expectations in terms of professional preparation of a project
also partly depends on the size of an entity. I believe that budgets below
100k should be treated with more lenience than those of over 1m, and the
medium-sized budgets in between require some medium approach as well. Yet,
ultimately, projects are written to show that the money is really worth
spending on them.

What is essential in evaluating proposals, is seeing their impact for the
movement. For instance (and bear with me for this theoretical example), I
would rather be reluctant to support a project in which the vast majority
of expenses are to cover only office work and staff, with minimal direct
relation to projects and initiatives themselves. The discussion on what
proportions of overheads to other expenses are good is ongoing and, all in
all, we probably should be flexible here (because of different labor laws,
taxation, customs, etc.). But generally, all projects funded through the
FDC should be the ones really worth funding. Also, I think it would be
really good if there was more interaction with the prospective applicants
prior to applying, so as to help them and make sure they do not invest
their time in vain. We are going to suggest changes to the FDC application
process soon (and hope to get the community's insight into this, especially
from the entities which applied).

I'm writing this reply on the spot to acknowledge the discussion, more to
follow tomorrow.

best,

dariusz ("pundit")




On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Christophe Henner <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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
>



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

metasj
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
Dear Deryck,

I am also sorry to read this.  Thank you for sharing your reflections,
they are always welcome.

The FDC is an experiment in peer review, one that I think holds
promise.  It was designed in part to avoid 'mainstream charity
bureaucracy'.  But this is its first year, and there will be rough
spots along the way.  Your feedback will improve the process.

This public list is a fine place for the discussion.  An ombudsperson
and a complaint process are part of the design, both public:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2


Nathan writes:
> Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
> what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like

Christophe writes:
> [We need] a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)

Both practical ideas.  Support for the first stages of growth should
be handled differently from later infrastructure support.

Also:
- More continuous feedback is needed.
- Eligibility should be simple and unchanging throughout the process.
- Whether or not a proposal is approved, there should be follow-up
support to help applicants figure out next steps.

Regards,
SJ

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Tilman Bayer
In reply to this post by Thehelpfulone
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Thehelpfulone
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?

It seem that instead of "unused funds", your question should be
reworded to "unaccounted funds" or "funds not used for the stated
purpose". That the missing USD 5981 had not been used (and were still
sitting in WMHK's bank account) appears to have been the assumption in
December when the WMF grants administrator accepted the report for the
grant and suggested to offset the amount against an upcoming grant for
the chapter. But on February 28 - on the eve of the FDC proposal
deadline - Deryck responded explaining that the money had in fact
already been used for purposes not mentioned in the grant report.

Apart from that, your question seems valid: The path subsequently
suggested by the grants administrator to resolve the situation (while
indicating implications regarding the chapter's FDC proposal) was to
request a reallocation while explaining what the money was spent for,
so it is relevant to know whether it was taken.

Again, I'm not familiar with this case and am going purely by the text
on the linked page.

>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Deryck Chan" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
>> to everyone
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
>> declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
>> new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
>> excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
>> On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
>>> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
>>> it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
>>> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
>>> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
>>> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Craig Franklin
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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_KongshowsWMHK 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Deryck Chan-2
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
> it discovered they were not?


When the FDC recommendations were published. (see my reply to THO)


> Obviously, putting together an FDC
> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
>

Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the
remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will change
everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is
a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.

>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > 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_KongshowsWMHK 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Deryck Chan-2
In reply to this post by Thehelpfulone
We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the
2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie.
the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is
logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end
of Wikimania.

Winifred informed us of the "out of compliance" well after the grant report
was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. *There was no
indication whatsoever that this late notice of "out of compliance" may lead
to retrospective disqualification.*

Deryck

(cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints.
Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)


On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused
> funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> >
> > See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> > declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently
> found
> > new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> > excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> > On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were
> eligible
> >> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when
> was
> >> it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
> >> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the
> effort
> >> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into
> this
> >> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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_KongshowsWMHKto 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.

Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an
"algorithm" but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.

These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the
project.

This has generated anyway a wasting of time.

Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
*personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
evaluate it differently.

regards


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>wrote:

>
>
> Ilario - I disagree with your view that we should have an algorithm of
> evaluating projects, mainly because projects vary quite a lot. Also, it is
> my strong personal belief that it is imperative that if we see brilliant
> projects, with visionary impact for our movement, we should be able to
> support them, irrespective of some minor formal imperfections. I do serve
> on another funds dissemination committee relying on a sort of algorithmic
> method and quite often it is difficult to appreciate great projects with
> high impact, if they fail to tap into some of the application fields (btw,
> there we're giving grants of about $5k, while requiring more paperwork than
> in the FDC).
>
>


--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

David Gerard-2
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
> *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
> evaluate it differently.


And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
funds came in.

(I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
actively chose to ignore it.)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
well, the fundamental question regarding the "centralisation of funds" is
whether we agree that some chapters have higher impact ability (in terms of
effectiveness, results, etc.) and should be prioritized in terms of funding
access, or whether any decisions about funds distribution based on project
analysis are fundamentally wrong.  If we agree that the role of the FDC is
not only to approve all projects that come in, but also to actively try to
evaluate them and occasionally recommend cutting or denying funds from this
particular source (while recommending going to others), one thing is
guaranteed: the chapters, which do not receive funding, will be
disappointed and often will express it, round after round. This should not
necessarily be mistaken for a flaw in the FDC process per se, although
always some concrete comments and complaints about the process should be
considered fully by the ombudsperson, the board, and the community (after
all, all projects, discussions about them, as well as assessments are
available to read).

The question whether a different FDC composition would evaluate the
projects differently is definitely valid, although when 7 (and soon 9)
members of the community, all with significant chapter and/or grants
experience actually reach a consensus on some issue, I would assume that
this agreement may likely be replicable. Nevertheless, there will always
also be borderline cases where there is no consensus, and yet a decision
has to be made (round 2 went through unanimously though).

My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.

Ilario - some general matrix of evaluation is indeed a useful idea. The
current for does attempt to address this a little, but definitely it can be
improved, and this was also part of the feedback from the community during
the chapters conference. Definitely work need to be done in this area, too.

best,

dariusz "pundit"



On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
> > *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
> > evaluate it differently.
>
>
> And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
> funds came in.
>
> (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
> actively chose to ignore it.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Tomasz Ganicz
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>:

> My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
> there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
> what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
>

Actually the information how GAC works is IMHO much more clear that
for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made
almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of
applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that
application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters
professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application
to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among
others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications
were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were
withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off
of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were
accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these
chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in
predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact.
Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is
for sure not a solution for professionalisation.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Table

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Markus Glaser-2
In reply to this post by metasj
Deryck,

it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you
as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and
contributions are very valuable to the movement.

It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and
FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an
office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the
funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation.
Maybe it would help to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding
proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is
not approved at all, there's still a fallback option.

Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on
the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from
zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the
proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding.
Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of
people together who are willing to help with such an assessment?

Best,
Markus

--
Markus Glaser
WCA Council Member (WMDE)
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]>wrote:

> 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.


Deryck! I'm also sorry to read this message, and sorry that it has been so
frustrating for you and the rest of the HK team.

It sounds like it was tough to communicate what was going on with the other
grant, and there is disagreement and confusion about whether the end of
that grant was appropriately communicated to WMF. Perhaps this is a good
time for the ombudsperson to step in and take a look at what happened.

I'd also say that this is an area of FDC process we need to shore up and
clarify (eligible entities should expect to stay eligible, or know clearly
that they might become ineligible under certain circumstances).

I can't wait to attend Wikimania, and visit Hong Kong for the first time. I
know that planning the conference is incredibly stressful on top of
everything else. Hang in there,

-- Phoebe
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
In reply to this post by Everton Zanella Alvarenga-3

>
> P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
>

Agreed, I am not on Internal either…

Jan-Bart


> [1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
> useful than a life spent doing nothing."
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Sarah Stierch-2
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
>> P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
>>
> Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
>
> Jan-Bart

Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to
why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here,
there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)

-Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
 >>Visit sarahstierch.com <http://sarahstierch.com><<
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

David Gerard-2
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
> list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why
> it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there,
> and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)


It's pretty much inactive and closing it has been proposed.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
In reply to this post by Deryck Chan-2
Hello Everyone

I was an observer on the first round of the FDC, Patricio was the observer of the recent round of FDC requests so he will probably be able to tell you more on the specific details. But in general I have been (and still am) extremely impressed with the level of scrutiny AND the flexibility of the FDC members. I was witness to several spirited discussions and saw a group of thoughtful people doing what they were good at: reviewing proposals for large grants.

But as I understand there were several "issues" with the proposal, please do not pick on one issue. We had a community review period which also resulted in some serious questions (some without answers).  And the FDC feedback gave several reasons.

I would have seriously disappointed if $200K+ was granted. I do think that we need to provide a way to support an organisation after the FDC process… and we have in several cases in the past.

David: I do not agree with you. you are blaming the WMF for the fact that the FDC is doing a good job in reviewing funding proposals. The "Centralisation" of payment processing has little to do with this. In fact, most chapters that do not payment process since the change (and there were not that many to begin with) are happy with the new process (and a lot of other chapters go through Grants process, which they would have done anyway regardless of the change to an FDC which exists alongside). I argue that the FDC is the best thing that has happened to our movement and combined with an improved process and chapter peer review we are going to get even better. I would love to hear how you would have handled this particular FDC request.


Jan-Bart




On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania.
>
> Winifred informed us of the "out of compliance" well after the grant report was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. There was no indication whatsoever that this late notice of "out of compliance" may lead to retrospective disqualification.
>
> Deryck
>
> (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
> >
> > See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> > declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
> > new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> > excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> > On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
> >> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
> >> it discovered they were not?  Obviously, putting together an FDC
> >> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> >> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> >> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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_KongshowsWMHK 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12345