[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

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

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by
December 15, 2012.

The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying
entity.

The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.

If any entity has a complaint about the FDC’s recommendation, it should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of
the FDC [4]:

   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page
   designated for this purpose [5]
   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
   funding-seeking entity.
   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of
   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
   November 22)
   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra
   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by
   the FDC's initial recommendation.
   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if
   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.



on behalf of the FDC

Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1


[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1


[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process


[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process


[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board

_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
To: [hidden email]


The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13.
The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by
December 15, 2012.

The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11
Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided
that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would
be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals
to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals.
This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed
the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying
entity.

The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process
and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in
the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki
to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our
continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.

If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be
submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint
process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of
the FDC [4]:

   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page
   designated for this purpose [5]
   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
   funding-seeking entity.
   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of
   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
   November 22)
   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra
   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by
   the FDC's initial recommendation.
   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if
   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.



on behalf of the FDC

Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1




[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1



[3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process



[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process



[5]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board






--

__________________________
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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
Hi Everyone

Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post created earlier today.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/

I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all levels. Thanks everyone!

Jan-Bart
(who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars….)


On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> To: [hidden email]
>
>
> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13.
> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by
> December 15, 2012.
>
> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11
> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided
> that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would
> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these proposals
> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals.
> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed
> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each applying
> entity.
>
> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the process
> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works in
> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki
> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our
> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>
> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should be
> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the complaint
> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation of
> the FDC [4]:
>
>   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
>   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page
>   designated for this purpose [5]
>   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>   funding-seeking entity.
>   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of
>   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
>   November 22)
>   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
>   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra
>   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by
>   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if
>   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>
>
>
> on behalf of the FDC
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>
>
>
>
> [2]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>
>
>
> [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>
>
>
> [4]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>
>
>
> [5]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> 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


_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Lodewijk
Hi,

From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations
got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I
assume more detailed arguments will follow?

Kind regards,
Lodewijk

2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>

> Hi Everyone
>
> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
> created earlier today.
>
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>
> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved
> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed
> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine
> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all
> levels. Thanks everyone!
>
> Jan-Bart
> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>
>
> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> > To: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13.
> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations
> by
> > December 15, 2012.
> >
> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11
> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided
> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
> would
> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
> proposals
> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement goals.
> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed
> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
> applying
> > entity.
> >
> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
> process
> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what works
> in
> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process on-wiki
> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in our
> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
> >
> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should
> be
> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
> complaint
> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial Operation
> of
> > the FDC [4]:
> >
> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
> page
> >   designated for this purpose [5]
> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
> >   funding-seeking entity.
> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission
> of
> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
> >   November 22)
> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra
> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated
> by
> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation
> if
> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
> >
> >
> >
> > on behalf of the FDC
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [2]
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >
> >
> >
> > [3]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
> >
> >
> >
> > [4]
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
> >
> >
> >
> > [5]
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __________________________
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
hi Lodewijk,

first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
methodology.

Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
organization incorporated).

Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which
were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they
asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on
a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of
sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small
entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position,
which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year)
significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more
harmoniously.

best,

dariusz




On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some organizations
> got so much less than they requested, and some got every single dollar. I
> assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>
> Kind regards,
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>
>> Hi Everyone
>>
>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>> created earlier today.
>>
>>
>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>
>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved
>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed
>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine
>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all
>> levels. Thanks everyone!
>>
>> Jan-Bart
>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>
>>
>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>> > To: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>> 2012-13.
>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations
>> by
>> > December 15, 2012.
>> >
>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from 11
>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided
>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>> would
>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>> proposals
>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>> goals.
>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members discussed
>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>> applying
>> > entity.
>> >
>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>> process
>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>> works in
>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>> on-wiki
>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
>> our
>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>> >
>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it should
>> be
>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>> complaint
>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>> Operation of
>> > the FDC [4]:
>> >
>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
>> page
>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission
>> of
>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
>> >   November 22)
>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>> extra
>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated
>> by
>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation
>> if
>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > on behalf of the FDC
>> >
>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [2]
>> >
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [3]
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [4]
>> >
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [5]
>> >
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > __________________________
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Thomas Dalton
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
> organization incorporated).

Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility
requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at
least two years.
_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Nathan Awrich
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic
circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the
WMF.

_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Thomas Dalton
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot
would happen...

On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, "Nathan" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
> entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
> meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic
> circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the
> WMF.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
Hey Thomas,

I think I can take this one. I think that the FDC has expressed that its up to the WCA to determine its own financing model, while at the same time indicating that the membership fees model might not be the optimal solution for this, and that there are better ways)

At the same time the FDC has already expressed that the current FDC framework might not work for every situation (and has recommended one or two exceptions this time around). It is also suggesting that the Board of Trustees might want to make an exception to the current rules for applying to the FDC because of the unique nature of the WCA.

(and I think it is a good suggestion which is worth discussing)

Jan-Bart



On 15 Nov 2012, at 20:54, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>> organization incorporated).
>
> Can you elaborate on that? By my understanding of the eligibility
> requirements, the WCA is not eligible for FDC funding and won't be for at
> least two years.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
hi Nathan,

other WCA-related costs are clearly pertaining to the fact of WCA being
organized. People need to travel, meet, etc. to make it happen. Just as
Thomas mentions, there needs to be funding for stuff that is not
operational yet, but being organized.

Membership fees though are not such a clear thing, as some chapters did
include it, some didn't, and it was also visible that the level of those
membership fees is not established yet - so practically, these costs were
more like conditional reserves. Also, the membership model was discussed as
potentially not optimal (for accountability, transparency, etc.), and FDC
could be potentially a better way to address it, once WCA establishes,
after the Board eligibility approval (just as Jan-Bart points out).

best,

dariusz


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
> entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
> meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic
> circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the
> WMF.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
Hi Dariusz,

it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
didn't trust them with the money etc).

But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
applications.

I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why
I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great
discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are
so shallow.

I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the
cases.

Kind regards,

Lodewijk

2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>

> hi Lodewijk,
>
> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
> methodology.
>
> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
> organization incorporated).
>
> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which
> were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they
> asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on
> a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of
> sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small
> entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position,
> which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year)
> significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more
> harmoniously.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> Hi Everyone
>>>
>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>> created earlier today.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>
>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved
>>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed
>>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine
>>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all
>>> levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>
>>> Jan-Bart
>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>> > To: [hidden email]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>> announce
>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>> 2012-13.
>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>> recommendations by
>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>> >
>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
>>> 11
>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>> decided
>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>> would
>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>> proposals
>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>> goals.
>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>> discussed
>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>> applying
>>> > entity.
>>> >
>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>> process
>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>> works in
>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>> on-wiki
>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
>>> our
>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>> >
>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>> should be
>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>> complaint
>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>> Operation of
>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>> >
>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
>>> page
>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>> submission of
>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
>>> >   November 22)
>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>> extra
>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>> allocated by
>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>> investigation if
>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>> >
>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> >
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [2]
>>> >
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [3]
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [4]
>>> >
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > [5]
>>> >
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > __________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Christophe Henner-2
Hi everyone,

I send this mail as a representative of Wikimedia France.

Wikimedia France acknowledges and agrees with the FDC decision.

The arguments provided with the decision makes sense to us.
Wikimedia France will submit, if possible, a request for the round 2.

On behalf of Wikiemdia France board,

Christophe HENNER | Membre du Conseil d'Administration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
› Mail : [hidden email]
› Mobile : +33(0)6 29 35 65 94
› Tel : +33(0)5 62 89 12 01
› Twitter : @Wikimedia_Fr
-----------------------------------------------------
Wikimédia France | Association pour le libre partage de la
connaissance | Visitez notre blog http://blog.wikimedia.fr


On 15 November 2012 21:29, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>
> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
> applications.
>
> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why
> I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great
> discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are
> so shallow.
>
> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the
> cases.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>
>> hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>> methodology.
>>
>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>> organization incorporated).
>>
>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which
>> were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they
>> asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on
>> a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of
>> sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small
>> entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position,
>> which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year)
>> significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more
>> harmoniously.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>
>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>>
>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those involved
>>>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As expressed
>>>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will refine
>>>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all
>>>> levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>>> > To: [hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>> announce
>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>>> 2012-13.
>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>> recommendations by
>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>>> >
>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
>>>> 11
>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>> decided
>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>>> would
>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and FDC
>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>>> proposals
>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>>> goals.
>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>> discussed
>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>>> applying
>>>> > entity.
>>>> >
>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>>> process
>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>>> works in
>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to provide
>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>> on-wiki
>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
>>>> our
>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>> >
>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>>> should be
>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>>> complaint
>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>> Operation of
>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>>> >
>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
>>>> page
>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>> submission of
>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
>>>> >   November 22)
>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>>> extra
>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>>> allocated by
>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>> investigation if
>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>>> >
>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>> >
>>>> > [1]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [2]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [3]
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [4]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [5]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > __________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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

_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would
be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example,
take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC
come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of
revised budget in mind that came to that new total - it would be
interesting to see that revised budget.

That said, I think WMFR was one of the better explained - they felt there
were serious problems with the application so want WMFR to re-apply in
Round 2. Some explanation of where the $90k figure came from would be nice,
but it looks like the amount they felt was needed (in addition to WMFR's
reserves) in order to tide them over until the next round.


On 15 November 2012 20:29, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>
> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
> applications.
>
> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate why
> I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such great
> discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the arguments are
> so shallow.
>
> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to the
> cases.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>
> > hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
> > allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
> planning
> > on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
> > many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
> > methodology.
> >
> > Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
> > requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
> > budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
> deducted
> > for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
> > funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and
> the
> > organization incorporated).
> >
> > Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which
> > were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they
> > asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already
> on
> > a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of
> > sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes).
> Small
> > entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff
> position,
> > which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year)
> > significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more
> > harmoniously.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
> >> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
> >> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
> >>
> >>> Hi Everyone
> >>>
> >>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
> >>> created earlier today.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
> >>>
> >>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
> involved
> >>> in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
> expressed
> >>> earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we will
> refine
> >>> the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations on all
> >>> levels. Thanks everyone!
> >>>
> >>> Jan-Bart
> >>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> >>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
> >>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> >>> > To: [hidden email]
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
> >>> announce
> >>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
> >>> 2012-13.
> >>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
> >>> recommendations by
> >>> > December 15, 2012.
> >>> >
> >>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
> a
> >>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
> >>> 11
> >>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
> >>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
> >>> decided
> >>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
> >>> would
> >>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
> FDC
> >>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
> >>> proposals
> >>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
> >>> goals.
> >>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
> San
> >>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
> >>> discussed
> >>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
> >>> applying
> >>> > entity.
> >>> >
> >>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
> >>> process
> >>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
> >>> works in
> >>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
> provide
> >>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
> >>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
> >>> on-wiki
> >>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
> >>> our
> >>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
> >>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
> >>> >
> >>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
> >>> should be
> >>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
> >>> complaint
> >>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
> >>> Operation of
> >>> > the FDC [4]:
> >>> >
> >>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
> summary
> >>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
> >>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
> >>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
> >>> page
> >>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
> >>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
> >>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
> >>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
> >>> >   funding-seeking entity.
> >>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
> >>> submission of
> >>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
> UTC
> >>> >   November 22)
> >>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
> a
> >>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
> >>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
> >>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
> >>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
> >>> extra
> >>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
> >>> allocated by
> >>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
> >>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
> >>> investigation if
> >>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > on behalf of the FDC
> >>> >
> >>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
> >>> >
> >>> > [1]
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > [2]
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > [3]
> >>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > [4]
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > [5]
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> > __________________________
> >>> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

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

I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified
either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which
is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
reserves, etc.

In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When
larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).

best,

dj





On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>
> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
> applications.
>
> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such
> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
> arguments are so shallow.
>
> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
> the cases.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>
>> hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>> methodology.
>>
>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>> organization incorporated).
>>
>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities, which
>> were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what they
>> asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and already on
>> a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in terms of
>> sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget sizes). Small
>> entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a full-staff position,
>> which can increase the budget (as compared to the previous year)
>> significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can grow more
>> harmoniously.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>
>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>>
>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we
>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations
>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>>
>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>>> > To: [hidden email]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>> announce
>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>>> 2012-13.
>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>> recommendations by
>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>>> >
>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a
>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were from
>>>> 11
>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>> decided
>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>>> would
>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
>>>> FDC
>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>>> proposals
>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>>> goals.
>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in San
>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>> discussed
>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>>> applying
>>>> > entity.
>>>> >
>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>>> process
>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>>> works in
>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>>>> provide
>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>> on-wiki
>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it in
>>>> our
>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>> >
>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>>> should be
>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>>> complaint
>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>> Operation of
>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>>> >
>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal
>>>> page
>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>> submission of
>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC
>>>> >   November 22)
>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a
>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>>> extra
>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>>> allocated by
>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>> investigation if
>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>>> >
>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>> >
>>>> > [1]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [2]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [3]
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [4]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [5]
>>>> >
>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > __________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
>


--

__________________________
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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Lodewijk
Hi Dariusz,

I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret
the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee
doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
applicant?), state so. Etc.

Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.

I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for
the next round.

Kind regards,
Lodewijk

2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>

> hi Lodewijk,
>
> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified
> either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which
> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
> reserves, etc.
>
> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When
> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Dariusz,
>>
>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>>
>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
>> applications.
>>
>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such
>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
>> arguments are so shallow.
>>
>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
>> the cases.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>
>>> hi Lodewijk,
>>>
>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>>> methodology.
>>>
>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>>> organization incorporated).
>>>
>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what
>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and
>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in
>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget
>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can
>>> grow more harmoniously.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dariusz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>>>
>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we
>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations
>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>>>> > To: [hidden email]
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>>> announce
>>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>>>> 2012-13.
>>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>>> recommendations by
>>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
>>>>> a
>>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
>>>>> from 11
>>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>>> decided
>>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>>>> would
>>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
>>>>> FDC
>>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>>>> proposals
>>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>>>> goals.
>>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
>>>>> San
>>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>>> discussed
>>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>>>> applying
>>>>> > entity.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>>>> process
>>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>>>> works in
>>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>>>>> provide
>>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>>> on-wiki
>>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
>>>>> in our
>>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>>>> should be
>>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>>>> complaint
>>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>>> Operation of
>>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
>>>>> summary
>>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
>>>>> portal page
>>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>>> submission of
>>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
>>>>> UTC
>>>>> >   November 22)
>>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
>>>>> a
>>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>>>> extra
>>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>>>> allocated by
>>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>>> investigation if
>>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [1]
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [2]
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [3]
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [4]
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [5]
>>>>> >
>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> 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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Christophe Henner
What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more
arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?

I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as
the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to
have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?

Am I understanding your comment correctly,
--
Christophe


On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret
> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee
> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
> applicant?), state so. Etc.
>
> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.
>
> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for
> the next round.
>
> Kind regards,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>
>> hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified
>> either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
>> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which
>> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
>> reserves, etc.
>>
>> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
>> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
>> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When
>> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
>> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dariusz,
>>>
>>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
>>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
>>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
>>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
>>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
>>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
>>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
>>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
>>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>>>
>>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
>>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
>>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
>>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
>>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
>>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
>>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
>>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such
>>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
>>> arguments are so shallow.
>>>
>>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
>>> the cases.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> hi Lodewijk,
>>>>
>>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
>>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
>>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>>>> methodology.
>>>>
>>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
>>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>>>> organization incorporated).
>>>>
>>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
>>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what
>>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and
>>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in
>>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget
>>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
>>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
>>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can
>>>> grow more harmoniously.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> dariusz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
>>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we
>>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations
>>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>>>>> > To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>>>> announce
>>>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>>>>> 2012-13.
>>>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>>>> recommendations by
>>>>>> > December 15, 2012.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
>>>>>> from 11
>>>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>>>> decided
>>>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
>>>>>> FDC
>>>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
>>>>>> San
>>>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>>>>> applying
>>>>>> > entity.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>>>>> works in
>>>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>>>> on-wiki
>>>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
>>>>>> in our
>>>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>>>>> complaint
>>>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>>>> Operation of
>>>>>> > the FDC [4]:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
>>>>>> summary
>>>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
>>>>>> portal page
>>>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
>>>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
>>>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>>>> submission of
>>>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>> >   November 22)
>>>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>>>>> extra
>>>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>>>>> allocated by
>>>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>>>> investigation if
>>>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [1]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [2]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [3]
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [4]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > [5]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > __________________________
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Lodewijk
Hi Christophe,

I would like to see that
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1#Recommendationscontains
a good summary to understand well why a decision has been made.
Some cases I find the argumentation acceptable, and in some much to be
improved. Not only when the amount is lower than requested, but in general.
In the case of Argentina for example, the only things the FDC argues is 1)
they have a good track record etc and 2) that the chapter is careful. But
it doesn't say whether the programs are good, whether they are a good fit
etc. Of course as you indicate I could go to the talk pages and see the
opinions of individual FDC members or FDC staff members, but that is no
committee decision.

Because lets face it: the committee was together for four days. I trust
that they had lots of deliberations and valuable discussion. It is just a
sad thing that this is not reflected. I am not trying to dispute the
specific outcomes here (although I have some reservations about some), but
I hope that we don't set a precedent here with such little information on
what led to these decisions.

But in your email I seem to read I'm missing information. Is there any
further information published by the committee (not: individual members)
that I might be missing?

Best,
Lodewijk

2012/11/15 Christophe Henner <[hidden email]>

> What you would like is that the FDC recommendation was including more
> arguments detailling why they reached that conclusion?
>
> I believe the proposal talk page includes all the necessary data, as
> the FDC gave its feedback on the talk pages, but you would like to
> have those discussions summed up with the recommandation?
>
> Am I understanding your comment correctly,
> --
> Christophe
>
>
> On 15 November 2012 23:28, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Dariusz,
> >
> > I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do
> regret
> > the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee
> > doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
> > decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
> > If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
> > applicant?), state so. Etc.
> >
> > Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
> > read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
> > necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.
> >
> > I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
> > would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
> > unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
> > would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback
> for
> > the next round.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> >
> >> hi Lodewijk,
> >>
> >> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
> >> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
> >> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
> >> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was
> justified
> >> either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
> >> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth,
> which
> >> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
> >> reserves, etc.
> >>
> >> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
> >> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
> >> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2.
> When
> >> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
> >> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dj
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Dariusz,
> >>>
> >>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
> >>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that
> to
> >>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was
> personally
> >>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that
> information
> >>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a
> technicality is
> >>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
> >>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
> >>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
> >>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
> >>>
> >>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap
> was
> >>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I
> find
> >>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
> >>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has
> to
> >>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in
> depth
> >>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the
> recommendation in
> >>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
> >>> applications.
> >>>
> >>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
> >>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into
> such
> >>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
> >>> arguments are so shallow.
> >>>
> >>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
> >>> the cases.
> >>>
> >>> Kind regards,
> >>>
> >>> Lodewijk
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>>> hi Lodewijk,
> >>>>
> >>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
> >>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not
> planning
> >>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a
> great
> >>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
> >>>> methodology.
> >>>>
> >>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
> >>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120%
> maximum
> >>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been
> deducted
> >>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for
> FDC
> >>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided,
> and the
> >>>> organization incorporated).
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
> >>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of
> what
> >>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and
> >>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater
> rigor in
> >>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget
> >>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
> >>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
> >>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities
> can
> >>>> grow more harmoniously.
> >>>>
> >>>> best,
> >>>>
> >>>> dariusz
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <
> [hidden email]>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
> >>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got
> every
> >>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>> Lodewijk
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Everyone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog
> post
> >>>>>> created earlier today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
> >>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating
> chapters. As
> >>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination
> and we
> >>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my
> expectations
> >>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan-Bart
> >>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>>>> > From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
> >>>>>> > Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
> >>>>>> > Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
> >>>>>> > To: [hidden email]
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
> >>>>>> announce
> >>>>>> > recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
> >>>>>> 2012-13.
> >>>>>> > The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
> >>>>>> recommendations by
> >>>>>> > December 15, 2012.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1
> for
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> > total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
> >>>>>> from 11
> >>>>>> > Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals
> were
> >>>>>> > received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
> >>>>>> decided
> >>>>>> > that since it was the first time for the process, the late
> proposals
> >>>>>> would
> >>>>>> > be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC
> and
> >>>>>> FDC
> >>>>>> > support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
> >>>>>> proposals
> >>>>>> > to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
> >>>>>> goals.
> >>>>>> > This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
> >>>>>> San
> >>>>>> > Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
> >>>>>> discussed
> >>>>>> > the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
> >>>>>> applying
> >>>>>> > entity.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that
> the
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>> > and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
> >>>>>> works in
> >>>>>> > the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
> >>>>>> provide
> >>>>>> > overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for
> these
> >>>>>> > recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
> >>>>>> on-wiki
> >>>>>> > to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
> >>>>>> in our
> >>>>>> > continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
> >>>>>> > recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
> >>>>>> should be
> >>>>>> > submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
> >>>>>> complaint
> >>>>>> > process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
> >>>>>> Operation of
> >>>>>> > the FDC [4]:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >   - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
> >>>>>> summary
> >>>>>> >   directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the
> FDC
> >>>>>> >   (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
> >>>>>> >   - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
> >>>>>> portal page
> >>>>>> >   designated for this purpose [5]
> >>>>>> >   - These board representatives will present the complaint to the
> WMF
> >>>>>> >   Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
> >>>>>> >   - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of
> a
> >>>>>> >   funding-seeking entity.
> >>>>>> >   - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
> >>>>>> submission of
> >>>>>> >   the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
> >>>>>> UTC
> >>>>>> >   November 22)
> >>>>>> >   - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization
> filing
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> >   complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
> >>>>>> >   - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in
> an
> >>>>>> >   amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only
> in
> >>>>>> >   extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to
> release
> >>>>>> extra
> >>>>>> >   funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
> >>>>>> allocated by
> >>>>>> >   the FDC's initial recommendation.
> >>>>>> >   - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
> >>>>>> investigation if
> >>>>>> >   approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > on behalf of the FDC
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > [1]
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > [2]
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > [3]
> >>>>>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > [4]
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > [5]
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > --
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > __________________________
> >>>>>> > 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> __________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
Lodewijk, 15/11/2012 23:28:
> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.  [...]

Don't worry, reading the entities' proposals and associated talks would
only increase your confusion about the decisions.

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] [Wikimedia Announcements] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to announce
> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13.
> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by
> December 15, 2012.

Thanks very much to the members of the FDC who took on a brand-new
process and worked through lots and lots of often-confusing reading
and long meetings. Thanks also to the WMF staff who put in tons of
work behind the scenes organizing the process, reading proposals,
organizing meetings, etc; to the advisory group who worked hard to
flesh out this whole idea; to the board representatives who are
conveying this all back to the board; and to everyone who's commented
and helped out.

And thanks Dariusz for trying to answer everyone's questions -- that
part is never easy!

best,
phoebe

--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.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] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13

Jan-Bart de Vreede-3
In reply to this post by Lodewijk
Hey Lodewijk,

So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is true. A movement like ours always hungers for more details, and we do always manage to discuss a lot of the details (even if a discussion on one detail does not affect the overall picture). In this case the FDC has decided to give a headlines recommendation because they felt that this was the right level of detail. The chapters who wrote the proposals can indicate if they feel that they have enough information. You are free to indicate that as well, but please don't present it as the general opinion.

And at the same time, if you hunger for more details I do want to refer you to the plans and the discussion on the talk pages. We have asked a lot of time of FDC members in making these decisions. Coming to a common decision was a thorough process during which a lot opinions had to be discussed (and assuming that there is limited time I would guess that this time is better spend making the deliberations rather than working on detailed reporting). A specific chapter will know the details of their application (as will you when you visit their proposal and talk pages) and can hopefully move forward with the comments received. Its not the FDC's job to make all details of an application and their opinion available to you in a nice summary document because you don't want to read the plans… The decisions do NOT stand on their own and are part of the FDC portal, which provides more transparency than you have ever seen in any funds distribution of this size anywhere in the world I would guess.

And for what its worth: as an observer during the process I think that a funding decision for a specific chapter did come down to a few major factors, and not many details. These factors are different in some cases, but there are never "10s" of factors...

The FDC might choose to provide more details next time around, but if they don't that is still their choice, and it depends on the feedback we ALL give during this round.

Jan-Bart

On 15 Nov 2012, at 23:28, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Dariusz,
>
> I do not doubt the seriousness and dedication of the committee. I do regret
> the bad precedent set here (as a movement member) that the committee
> doesn't specify in sufficient detail the reasons how these major budget
> decisions have been made. If the 120% played a role, please specify that.
> If there are confidential reasons (which will be sent to the board & the
> applicant?), state so. Etc.
>
> Some people told me that the other reasons were obvious if I would have
> read the plans. I strongly disagree that reading the proposals should be
> necessary to understand the decision of the FDC.
>
> I sincerely hope for improvement in this area. It would be sad if the FDC
> would not be as transparent in its arguments as it could be. If you're
> unwilling to make this improvement at this point (since all FDC members
> would probably have to agree) I at least hope you take this as feedback for
> the next round.
>
> Kind regards,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>
>> hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> I think it is clear that "not trusting them with the money" was not the
>> case with any of the chapters. We have not been relying just on one
>> technicality of 120%, but also taking into account the size of the
>> organization, the actual project (specifically, if the growth was justified
>> either by extraordinary circumstances or  by the early stage of
>> development, which we considered more valid than just rapid growth, which
>> is often considered as as dangerous as a wind-down), the financial
>> reserves, etc.
>>
>> In case of budget reductions, we've been very careful to make sure that
>> chapters do not have to close shop, and in the cases where it seemed
>> appropriate, we suggested making an exception and going for Round 2. When
>> larger cuts were considered, we always had the previous annual budget in
>> mind as a reference point (sometimes pro-rated per month).
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dariusz,
>>>
>>> it would probably be helpful if it were indicated when the 120% cap was
>>> used as the sole reason to reduce the amount. Could you still add that to
>>> the arguments? That would make it much more insightful. I was personally
>>> under the impression the maximum was 150% by the way, but that information
>>> might have been outdated. Then it is at least clear that a technicality is
>>> the sole cause for your rejection of part of their budget (and could
>>> potentially form ground for the chapter to ask the board to make an
>>> exception - it would be quite different if the reasons were because you
>>> didn't trust them with the money etc).
>>>
>>> But for example in the case of Wikimedia France I guess the 120% cap was
>>> not the reason you only allocated 10% of the amount they requested. I find
>>> the reasoning in their case quite poor for such a major decision which
>>> could potentially mean that people get fired and the organization has to
>>> scale down significantly. I'm confident that you had very good and in depth
>>> discussions about this, but this is not reflected in the recommendation in
>>> their specific case. I guess this might be the case for a few more
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> I don't want to go to a specific case here, but just want to illustrate
>>> why I feel the arguments are poorly presented. Since you did go into such
>>> great discussion, I feel it would be a waste of your efforts if the
>>> arguments are so shallow.
>>>
>>> I am still hopeful you will change your mind, and add more reasoning to
>>> the cases.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/11/15 Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> hi Lodewijk,
>>>>
>>>> first, this is basically a recommendation for the Board, not the final
>>>> allocation. However, regarding your specific question: We are not planning
>>>> on providing further detailed responses - we have already offered a great
>>>> many details in our overall recommendations in terms of process and
>>>> methodology.
>>>>
>>>> Per the fact that some organizations "got so much less than they
>>>> requested": please, keep in mind that there was a suggested 120% maximum
>>>> budget growth capping, and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
>>>> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
>>>> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
>>>> organization incorporated).
>>>>
>>>> Also, our recommendations make it very clear that smaller entities,
>>>> which were making significant leaps in maturity tended to get most of what
>>>> they asked for, while entities which are medium to large, staffed and
>>>> already on a clear growth path, were looked at with even greater rigor in
>>>> terms of sustainable and appropriate plans (also because of the budget
>>>> sizes). Small entities are often going from no/part-time staff to a
>>>> full-staff position, which can increase the budget (as compared to the
>>>> previous year) significantly, but cannot be avoided. Larger entities can
>>>> grow more harmoniously.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> dariusz
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> From the arguments, I had a hard time to understand why some
>>>>> organizations got so much less than they requested, and some got every
>>>>> single dollar. I assume more detailed arguments will follow?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2012/11/15 Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rather than repeat everything I would like to point you to a blog post
>>>>>> created earlier today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/15/fdc-process-milestone-sharing-wikimedia-movement-funds/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do want to take the opportunity to once again thank all those
>>>>>> involved in this first round, including all the participating chapters. As
>>>>>> expressed earlier: this is the future of our funds dissemination and we
>>>>>> will refine the process, but this first round has exceeded my expectations
>>>>>> on all levels. Thanks everyone!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan-Bart
>>>>>> (who now goes digging in the attic for some barn stars....)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 Nov 2012, at 19:38, Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: Dariusz Jemielniak <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:25 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) is pleased to
>>>>>> announce
>>>>>>> recommendations [1] on Round 1 of funds allocations for the year
>>>>>> 2012-13.
>>>>>>> The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these
>>>>>> recommendations by
>>>>>>> December 15, 2012.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> total requested amount of 10.4 million USD. These proposals were
>>>>>> from 11
>>>>>>> Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were
>>>>>>> received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC
>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>> that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be accepted and discussed. Since the proposal deadline, the FDC and
>>>>>> FDC
>>>>>>> support staff have spent many hours reviewing and assessing these
>>>>>> proposals
>>>>>>> to determine a set of allocations that would best support movement
>>>>>> goals.
>>>>>>> This assessment included a 4-day in-person deliberation session in
>>>>>> San
>>>>>>> Francisco over the period October 28-31, where the FDC members
>>>>>> discussed
>>>>>>> the proposals in depth and determined allocation amounts for each
>>>>>> applying
>>>>>>> entity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FDC recognizes that this is not a perfect process, and that the
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> and the outcome will improve over time as we learn more about what
>>>>>> works in
>>>>>>> the movement and what drives impact. We invite the community to
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> overall feedback on these recommendations on the talk page for these
>>>>>>> recommendations [2] and to provide feedback about the FDC process
>>>>>> on-wiki
>>>>>>> to the Ombudsperson [3], who will collect this feedback and use it
>>>>>> in our
>>>>>>> continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the
>>>>>>> recommendations, there is a separate process, outlined below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If any entity has a complaint about the FDC's recommendation, it
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> submitted by 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2012 in accordance with the
>>>>>> complaint
>>>>>>> process outlined in the Framework for the Creation and Initial
>>>>>> Operation of
>>>>>>> the FDC [4]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  - The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word
>>>>>> summary
>>>>>>>  directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC
>>>>>>>  (Jan-Bart and Patricio)
>>>>>>>  - The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC
>>>>>> portal page
>>>>>>>  designated for this purpose [5]
>>>>>>>  - These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF
>>>>>>>  Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation.
>>>>>>>  - Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a
>>>>>>>  funding-seeking entity.
>>>>>>>  - Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the
>>>>>> submission of
>>>>>>>  the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day
>>>>>> UTC
>>>>>>>  November 22)
>>>>>>>  - Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>  complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved.
>>>>>>>  - If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an
>>>>>>>  amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in
>>>>>>>  extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release
>>>>>> extra
>>>>>>>  funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not
>>>>>> allocated by
>>>>>>>  the FDC's initial recommendation.
>>>>>>>  - Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the
>>>>>> investigation if
>>>>>>>  approved by the Chair of the WMF Board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> on behalf of the FDC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dariusz Jemielniak (Chair)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Complaint_submission_process
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________________
>> 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


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12