Mailing List Archive

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

The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
of our FDC proposal.

At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.

My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me
that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of
little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.

My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.

My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully
professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to
deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia
chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
Wikimedia.

My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff
manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.

WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal
about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request
for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with
the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to
professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
was rejected.

And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.

My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and
the frustration?

Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more
traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity
as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
toddlers by their full marathon times.

Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea
to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.

I was wrong.

With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent
helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration
work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.

But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my
fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading.
I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for
volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.

I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts
will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and
staffing.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

With Wiki-Love,
Deryck

PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send
this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't
subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want
to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of
proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that
my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you
are to our movement and you have my sincere respect.

I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise,
and take a moment for doubt and serious review.

Fae (mobile)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always
going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time
to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make
volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed
upon them.

That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking
a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a
massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make
more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay
on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a
program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?

Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look
like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected
vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged
to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are
punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and
experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those
experiences less painful for all involved.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic
that future generations figure this out


On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

> Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being
> subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always
> going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time
> to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make
> volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed
> upon them.
>
> That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking
> a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a
> massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make
> more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay
> on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a
> program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?
>
> Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about
> what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look
> like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected
> vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged
> to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are
> punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and
> experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those
> experiences less painful for all involved.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi all

I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.

Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next

And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole Wikimania Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

--
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller wrote:
>As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
>funding discussions:
>
>[...]

Thanks for the links.

I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making
information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are
made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent
recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single
recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote
on that? And if so, is that vote public?

From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text.

"""
We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been
taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing
functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to
focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the
Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on
having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about
the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to
consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and
whether they are leading to the most impact possible.
"""

Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia
Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is
unclear to me.

MZMcBride

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here.

As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee.

The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.

As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high.

What we would need:
1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...)
2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds
3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)

We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of responsability.

Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement.

Best

Christophe
Envoye depuis mon Blackberry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com>
Sender: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36
To: <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement,
and a parting remark to everyone

Hi all

I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.

Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next

And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole Wikimania Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

--
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:

> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee.
> The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.


This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
> funding discussions:
>
> WMHK FDC proposal:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
>
> Responses:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?

>
> FDC round 2 results:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2
>
> Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that
> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals
and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation
these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even
that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others
no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very
intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully
paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide,
we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a
level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases
there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other
there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the
recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases
we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree
with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So
no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i
believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I
myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved
in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an
agreement with consensus.


> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of
> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring
> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where
> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We
> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and
> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers
> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer
> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff
> and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth
> rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading
> to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the
> Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?

The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff
should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage
their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are
involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.

Anders
Secretary of FDC


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?

Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong shows WMHK to still be an eligible entity.

Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?

---
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC.

I would read three main important weaknesses:

a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to
evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and
gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best
solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the
submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be
reduced a lot
b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these
criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and
it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the
context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the
support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong
because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have
opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies

I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to
solve conflicts.

It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer
review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.

Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer
that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European
chapters.

Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review"
evaluating it with European parameters!

Regards

On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
>
> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
>> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that
>> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all
> proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the
> deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ
> very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full
> funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these
> figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason,
> each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference
> still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then
> normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures.
> In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC
> members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a
> span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed
> and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure,
> and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of
> reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we
> manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the
> way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of
> the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same
> constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with
> consensus.
>
>
>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of
>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring
>> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where
>> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We
>> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and
>> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers
>> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer
>> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both
>> staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their
>> growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are
>> leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the
>> Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
>
> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed
> staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but
> support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF
> as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers
> involved.
>
> Anders
> Secretary of FDC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi David,

I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the
topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.

Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff
and FDC members in their comments do.
Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations
Yes, we're still missing some steps

Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created,
a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get
funds and so made a proposal.
But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is
like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining
the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a
specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a
regular basis.

This is not a "light" process.

I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the
FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a
painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can
totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC
role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help
Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding
personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at
that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though
in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals,
fostering Wikimedia community.

And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of
our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an
outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team,
we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those
demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of
the allocation. But we have

And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always
comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even
leaving, you see employees leaving too.
I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years
ago and left last December.

That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful
one, but a needed one I believe.

Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing
pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little
reporting? I do not.

Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the
process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant
to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended).
I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process
in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process
the FDC is.

As I said in my previous email:
* Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
with a formal process
* We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
requests

Best,
--
Christophe


On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee.
>> The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible.
>
>
> This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
> were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
> absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
> decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
> internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
> ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
>
>
> - d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi Christophe,

> From: christophe.henner@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
> To: dgerard@gmail.com
> CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
> As I said in my previous email:
> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
> with a formal process
Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.
> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
> requests

I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing?
Thanks,Abbas.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood <abbasjnr@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
>> From: christophe.henner@gmail.com
>> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
>> To: dgerard@gmail.com
>> CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
>> As I said in my previous email:
>> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
>> with a formal process
> Uhm, isn't this what is already happening? All those who are eligible for FDC funding have already gone through the normal Grants Program a multiple times.

Not all, and many only for project grants not for operations grants
(like part time accounting). This is a flaw of how the process is
perceive I think.

>> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
>> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
>> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
>> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
>> requests
>
> I'm sorry I don't understand that "you need a specific GAC process..." Do you mind rephrasing?
> Thanks,Abbas.

GAC is not able to provide grant for a full time employee right now.
The only way to get funds for that first employee is through the FDC.
Which, as I said earlier, is a really heavy process.

That being said, GAC can already provide funds for external
contractors on specific tasks, like accounting.

Is my rephrasing better? :s

--
Christophe

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each
member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This
ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during
the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment.

And culture context is central for most of us and it is fascinating the
broad understanding of cultural context, country specifics and specific
chapters operations there exist among the group of us

Anders







Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-04-29 10:07:
> Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses
> of the FDC.
>
> I would read three main important weaknesses:
>
> a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC
> and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific
> criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a
> feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the
> incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of
> criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria,
> the personal opinion should be reduced a lot
> b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these
> criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and
> it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
> c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the
> context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the
> support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong
> because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have
> opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies
>
> I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot
> to solve conflicts.
>
> It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about
> "peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.
>
> Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make
> clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like
> the European chapters.
>
> Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review"
> evaluating it with European parameters!
>
> Regards
>
> On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
>>
>> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
>>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
>>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
>>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
>>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
>>> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that
>>> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
>> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all
>> proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the
>> deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ
>> very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends
>> full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing
>> these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and
>> reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the
>> difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures,
>> which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended
>> funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions
>> among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern
>> where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which
>> also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a
>> recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing
>> some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the
>> reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we
>> are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have
>> in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen
>> the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement
>> with consensus.
>>
>>
>>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of
>>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff
>>> hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular
>>> where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been
>>> leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done
>>> by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos
>>> of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate
>>> volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates
>>> of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether
>>> their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether
>>> they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC
>>> commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation (or both)?
>>
>> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed
>> staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but
>> support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF
>> as well when hey are involved in activities where there are
>> volunteers involved.
>>
>> Anders
>> Secretary of FDC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
> [...]
> At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...]

Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry that you invested so
much energy in serving as guinea pig for the FDC process, and I
sympathise with your decision: as volunteers, we must focus on what lets
us achieve more.

It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to
make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are
already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. On the
bright side, experienced and valuable movement members like you and WMHK
can always find a way to use their intelligence and have an impact
within Wikimedia, despite external obstacles, *if* you don't rely on a
blocker/bottleneck outside your wiki/project/chapter/group (it's the
wiki way). Applying to FDC proved a mistake but now you and your fellow
chapter members can support each other in reassessing priorities and
finding a new motivation.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
> Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
> strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.


It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious
that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
and weren't going to listen any more.

Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten
<mail@anderswennersten.se> a écrit:
> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or
>> is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round
>> and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals
> and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation
> these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even
> that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others
> no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very
> intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully
> paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide,
> we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a
> level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases
> there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other
> there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the
> recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases
> we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree
> with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So
> no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i
> believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I
> myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved
> in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an
> agreement with consensus.

So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive
text about pros and cons of the FDC decision?

>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of
>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring
>> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where
>> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We
>> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and
>> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers
>> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer
>> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff
>> and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth
>> rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to
>> the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia
>> chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
>
> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff
> should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage
> their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are
> involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.

I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a
contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely
no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for
WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance,
financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan
of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high
impact".

As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload,
they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an
accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free
time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money,
they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for
program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities
[.by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task],
and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In
other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal
system next year as the FDC wants.

So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try
to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave.

Sébastien

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
>> Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
>> strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
>
>
> It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious
> that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
> about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
> and weren't going to listen any more.
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
David Gerard, 29/04/2013 11:16:
> On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
>> It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
>> Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
>> strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
>
>
> It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious
> that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder
> about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone
> and weren't going to listen any more.
>
> Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.

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

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
(which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC
application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> > might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
>
> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid
> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kongshows WMHK to still be an eligible entity.
>
> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
hi,

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

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

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

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

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

best,

dariusz ("pundit")




On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the
> topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
>
> Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff
> and FDC members in their comments do.
> Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations
> Yes, we're still missing some steps
>
> Now, I believe because of the situation in which the FDC was created,
> a lot of chapters thought that the FDC would become their way to get
> funds and so made a proposal.
> But the FDC is not the "normal" way to get fund, GAC should be. FDC is
> like a EU grant system, where you ask for a lot of money, explaining
> the main reasons you need the money (money is not earmarked for a
> specific project) and you report back on the use of the money on a
> regular basis.
>
> This is not a "light" process.
>
> I am sorry to hear of deeply commited people leaving because of the
> FDC toll. And to be quiet honest, even within WMFr the FDC was not a
> painless process... and we went through it twice already. I can
> totally relate to their feelings and exhaustion. But I believe the FDC
> role is, and there's much way of improvement on that, to help
> Wikimedia organisations get to the next stage regarding
> personification, goals definition, metrics, etc.. In fact we're at
> that moment when a start-up starts *really* thinking about ROI. Though
> in our case the ROI is not money but in furthering our goals,
> fostering Wikimedia community.
>
> And when I say Wikimedia organisations, I include WMF, because all of
> our standards are rather low. When I look at the proposals with an
> outside perspective, or with the level of quality I ask to my team,
> we're all far from the quality I could expect. If I was to judge those
> demands only on my professional criteria, no one would have 100% of
> the allocation. But we have
>
> And that change in perspective, from start-up to "company" always
> comes with its toll. You always see founders stepping back or even
> leaving, you see employees leaving too.
> I lived the exact same thing in a company I joined at founding 4 years
> ago and left last December.
>
> That is a normal step in the life of any organisation. It is a painful
> one, but a needed one I believe.
>
> Do we really believe it was better the way it was? Everybody doing
> pretty much what they want with the movement funds and little
> reporting? I do not.
>
> Now, I don't believe anyone is hiding. Everyone acknowledges the
> process is far from perfect. In The initial timeline there was meant
> to be a review period after the first rounds (the second just ended).
> I believe this period's goals are to on one hand improve the process
> in itself and on the other hand make it clearer how heavy a process
> the FDC is.
>
> As I said in my previous email:
> * Most of the chapters should go through the GAC first, to get used
> with a formal process
> * We need the first employee/office space budget being a specific GAC
> or FDC process (there's pros and cons in having one or the other
> handling it). Because let's be honest, the actual FDC process is way
> to heavy for those needs and the GAC is not meant to handle such
> requests
>
> Best,
> --
> Christophe
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 08:31, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to
> fund the first employee.
> >> The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of
> time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as
> possible.
> >
> >
> > This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
> > were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
> > absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
> > decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
> > internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
> > ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
> >
> >
> > - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarzÄ…dzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Dear Deryck,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Regards,
SJ

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:

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


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


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

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

>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> > > might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
> >
> > Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> paid
> > WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity.
> >
> > Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> > entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >
> > ---
> > Thehelpfulone
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.

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

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

This has generated anyway a wasting of time.

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

regards


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>wrote:

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


--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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

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


- d.

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

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

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

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

best,

dariusz "pundit"



On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

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



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarzÄ…dzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>:

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Deryck,

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

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

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

Best,
Markus

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


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk>wrote:

> Dear trusty Wikimedians,
>
> The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
> overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> of our FDC proposal.
>
> At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
> my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.


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

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

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

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

-- Phoebe
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
>
> P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
>

Agreed, I am not on Internal either…

Jan-Bart


> [1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
> useful than a life spent doing nothing."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
>> P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
>>
> Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
>
> Jan-Bart

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

-Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <http://sarahstierch.com><<
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:

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


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


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hello Everyone

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

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

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

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


Jan-Bart




On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:

> We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania.
>
> Winifred informed us of the "out of compliance" well after the grant report was accepted and the FDC eligibility of WMHK was announced. There was no indication whatsoever that this late notice of "out of compliance" may lead to retrospective disqualification.
>
> Deryck
>
> (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.)
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 12:50, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deryck please could you confirm what happened with regards to the unused funds - did WMHK request a reallocation?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> ---
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 12:43, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan@gmail.com>
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> > See the footnotes on the FDC decision page. Both WMHK and WMCZ were
> > declared eligible at the time of submission, but the WMF subsequently found
> > new faults during the review period which they chose to use as convenient
> > excuses to disqualify these 2 chapters.
> > On 29 Apr 2013 12:33, "Craig Franklin" <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
> >> (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
> >> it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC
> >> application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort
> >> was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this
> >> could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> >>>> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> >> paid
> >>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity.
> >>>
> >>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> >>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Thehelpfulone
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hey

So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I would like to ask you something.

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

But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance…

Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it?

And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a significant amount of time discussing this...

Jan-Bart







>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>>
>> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
>>>>
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
>>>> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
>>>
>>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
>> paid
>>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
>>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHK to still be an eligible entity.
>>>
>>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
>>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Thehelpfulone
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi Markus,

I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better…

And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review amongst themselves, I think its great and heard enthusiasm for the idea in Milan

Jan-Bart


On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Markus Glaser <markus.glaser@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Deryck,
>
> it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and contributions are very valuable to the movement.
>
> It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's still a fallback option.
>
> Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are willing to help with such an assessment?
>
> Best,
> Markus
>
> --
> Markus Glaser
> WCA Council Member (WMDE)
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 17:53, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
>> *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
>> evaluate it differently.
>
>
> And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
> funds came in.
>
> (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
> actively chose to ignore it.)
>
>
> - d.
>

Hey David,

I fear, but I might be wrong so correct me on that, that you are
mixing two things that happened roughly at the same time:
* the payment processing
* the FDC creation

Payment processing centralisation that is, imo, on the long run a wrong move.
And the FDC that is, imo, a good move on the long run.

The first question, payment processing, is not up to discussion for
the coming years. [
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 ]

Whether we like it, or not, the decision the board made is clearly a
middle ground that leaves us a few years to test out what seems to be
the most efficient. I'm sure we will have long discussions about that
in 2015 (if my calculus isn't too bad, we should start to talk about
it around then).

If you are actually talking about that, please forget that email (as I
don't think it's useful to get in that discussion now ^^)

So the FDC and the centralisation of fund dissemination. Well, before
FDC, funds were not really disseminated. WMF and chapters provided
other chapters with grant, but for a non fundraising chapter there was
little chance to get large sums of money and there was no way to
ensure the movement was growing with good practices.

I can't really see why that is a bad thing.

Is the WM HK situation good for the movement right now? Perhaps not.
And honestly I don't feel I'm in any position to evaluate that. I
didn't read thoroughly their proposal and I just saw about their grant
issue (whoever fault it is) today.

The FDC process need to be improved, we all agree on that, and WM HK
situation do show that we need that step in-between GAC grants and FDC
allocation.

The FDC is in its infancy, and we're hitting bumps. We're facing new challenges.
And quite frankly when we designed it last year, I was expecting much
much much more issues than we had.

I don't believe we would be pointing fingers and that we'd rather try
to find what went wrong and how to fix it.

And that exactly is what we're doing now I think, and what will be
done over the coming month.

And as the board member of a chapter that had its first proposal
mostly refused and had to go through the process twice in 6 month (and
is right now working on the FDC Q1 report) I can definitely say
there's room for improvement AND that the FDC process is a really
heavy process.

Best,

--
Christophe

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 29 April 2013 21:10, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey
>
> So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I
> would like to ask you something.
>
> >
> > Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
> > hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the
> > remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will
> change
> > everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this
> is
> > a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
> >
>
> But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a
> discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?

I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any
> organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If
> you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an
> advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that
> supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is
> governance…
>

From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times
that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered
in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the
reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for
us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."

>
> Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the
> annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website
> after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but
> could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under
> documentation?) Can you point me to it?
>

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf
(or scroll halfway down the proposal page)

>
> And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just
> the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a
> significant amount of time discussing this...
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Craig Franklin
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
> >>>> might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
> >> paid
> >>> WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_KongshowsWMHKto still be an eligible entity.
> >>>
> >>> Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible
> >>> entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> Thehelpfulone
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
This situation is regrettable. My impression is that the FDC ombudsperson should review the handling of WMHK's grant application, including the earlier investigations and communications regarding the determination of whether or not WMHK should have been disqualified from this FDC round. The ombudsperson may have access to information such as emails and accounting documents that are not public. I hope the ombudsperson's review will be reasonably speedy and thorough, and the results made public. One possible determination of an ombudsperson review is that the FDC's final determinations were right but that there are opportunities for improvement in communications with the chapter so that there aren't surprises late in the process which result in a high level of frustration for chapter volunteers.

Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the value of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with regards to chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first full time employee. There have also been comments made regarding the "heavy" nature of the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff please indicate whether a review of these concerns is under consideration, if so, how they plan to conduct the review?

Thanks,

Pine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I hope a few remarks are valid.

As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application
during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH.

The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is
understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations and
other funds. Legislation and general ethics call for a thorough application
process.

However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed
funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees,
is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed:
Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the
first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers,
another is the under-utilization of critical resources.

The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased,
until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very
low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the
USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global
organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a
reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources
pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its
address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than
in the rest of the world combined?

One major problem then, is that countries attracting millions of dollars in
donations, have insufficient organisational resources to make full use of
that local enthusiasm. We must not forget how few volunteers really are,
and how valuable their energy is to the projects rather than applied in
planning and book-keeping. What it the WMF tried to post some foundation
resources more evenly between regions and time zones, to assist chapters
and community processes more directly in the region. Serving Eastern Europe
or the Middle East time zones from San Fransisco is next to impossible, for
obvious reasons. Assistance presently restricts itselves to reporting,
planning and spread-sheet scrutiny, as apart from a more directly
supportive approach.

To just illustrate the point, we have existed for five years as a chapter
in Norway, supporting a high project production, but with a modest
population. Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic states are in more or less the
same situation. During the three years I have served at the chapter board,
I have never heard of any initiative from the WMF staff to neither visit,
meet, inspect, or support directly the projects and activities that are
taking place locally. There are no regular or even sporadic support visits,
campaign or outreach efforts from WMF in the region. Valuable but
complicated campaign initiatives that often require substantial
administrative effort, are totally left to the efforts of volunteers, with
an increasing gap towards the growing resources in the other and of the
organisational chain. "Translate this press brief, and try to get on local
tv". One result will be an even more unevenly distributed outreach and
campaigning power between some professionalised hubs (Germany, India, UK,
Switzerland, Israel), and totally amateur hubs (Hong Kong, Egypt, Japan,
Pakistan, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, etc).

Normally, organisational resources would be dispersed to reach out to the
most promising "markets" (for example, chinese or arabic language
communities) and adjust for local "market failure" in reaching that goal.
Instead, WMF resources are presently dispersed to the chapters and
communities that coincidently did fundraising before a certain date, or
reach through with their FDC submissions. Among them are hardly any
arab-speaking or chinese-speaking chapters, representing the two billion
people of those immensely large cultures.

This is in no way an effort to deny the hard work, entrepreneurship and
creativity of successful chapters. The problem lies not in London and
Berlin, but in Cairo and Lahore. Countries with hundreds of millions
of inhabitants are devoid of even the slightest organizational resource to
mobilize. This is too important to leave to an application process. The WMF
will eventually have to disperse resources more directly to overseas,
regional centras covering important time-zones. The WCA initiative and the
failure of WMHK to establish an outreach hub for its 1,3 billion strong
language-community, should be a powerful wake-up-call to start parting up
some of the resource at least for occasional focused efforts. India was a
good start.

Personally, it took the grants and funding processes to realizehow critical
this is. For many amateur chapters, the reporting regime inherent in such
processes is simply too much. In stead of draining lcal organizational
resources towards San Fransisco (by way of applications), turn the table
and start distributing some headquarter resources directly outwards, to the
chapters.

I am probably mistaken in much of the above, please excuse that, but I hope
for some common reflection and effort as a result of all this.

Kind regards
Erlend Bjørtvedt
WMNO



2013/4/29 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear trusty Wikimedians,
> >
> > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
> an
> > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> > of our FDC proposal.
> >
> > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
> > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
>
>
> Deryck! I'm also sorry to read this message, and sorry that it has been so
> frustrating for you and the rest of the HK team.
>
> It sounds like it was tough to communicate what was going on with the other
> grant, and there is disagreement and confusion about whether the end of
> that grant was appropriately communicated to WMF. Perhaps this is a good
> time for the ombudsperson to step in and take a look at what happened.
>
> I'd also say that this is an area of FDC process we need to shore up and
> clarify (eligible entities should expect to stay eligible, or know clearly
> that they might become ineligible under certain circumstances).
>
> I can't wait to attend Wikimania, and visit Hong Kong for the first time. I
> know that planning the conference is incredibly stressful on top of
> everything else. Hang in there,
>
> -- Phoebe
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to
achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny
from the FDC or GAC. It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC
process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt
feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a
symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly
innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and
judiciously granting funds.

In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC
reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single
budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in
engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals;
China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not
align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to
seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the
importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and
should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that
parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.

It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
way the WMF itself was created and has grown. It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
criticism and Sue's impending departure.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
> The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
> or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
> with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
> programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to
> achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny
> from the FDC or GAC. It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC
> process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt
> feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a
> symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly
> innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and
> judiciously granting funds.
>
> In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC
> reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single
> budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in
> engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals;
> China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not
> align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to
> seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the
> importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and
> should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that
> parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.
>
> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.

What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?

Supporting
> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.

I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement
efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision
made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
But we may agree to disagree on this.

Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current
stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a
rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in
comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to
chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)



It would be a poor use
> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
> criticism and Sue's impending departure.

I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions
(=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the
mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of
allocations should not become WMF ones).

In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What
I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated
volunteers to stay healthy.

We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk
about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.

In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
outcome. For no-one.
And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
mis-management and waste of donor resources".

Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
do not. I do.

And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter
would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to
present apologies for using such a strong statement.

Florence


> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.

In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds
belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.

Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
not to another large organization with its own duties.

To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
administrative staff, I would choose the former.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
funds" away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the
hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That
is disastreous.

To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
Asians aswell from there.

Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without
really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task
for the WMF.

Kind regards,

Erlend Bjørtvedt
WMNO



2013/4/30 Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com>

> Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
> suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
> chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
> referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
>
> In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds
> belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
> serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
> obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
> articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
> States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
>
> Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
> in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
> without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
> raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
> not to another large organization with its own duties.
>
> To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
> its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
> can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
> is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
> movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
> funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
> the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
> administrative staff, I would choose the former.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
> suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
> chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
> referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
>
> In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds
> belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to
> serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and
> obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the
> articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United
> States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
>
> Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax
> in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization
> without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it
> raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself,
> not to another large organization with its own duties.
>
> To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise
> its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it
> can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it
> is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the
> movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater
> funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for
> the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized
> administrative staff, I would choose the former.


Still, you need to have local staff to do local work.
I guess educational program, including school talks and visiting, and
all other outreaching activities do not require time (speaking on
day-time! 9-5); and maybe they could be done via Skype or after
day-off. Wait, kids go home after school.

WMF had asked us to help their wikipedia educational program in a
college last fall. Maybe flying a WMF staff from SF to Hong Kong is a
much better solution. Then our volunteer may didn't have to skip his
class.

Ok. Now we see opportunities but no volunteers and time to execute
them, so we ask for staff support in operation.
Or maybe nothing could happen.

Thank you.

--
Simon Shek
Council secretary
Wikimedia Hong Kong

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no>wrote:

> Dear Nathan,
> I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
> funds" away to weak chapters.
> The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
> made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the
> hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That
> is disastreous.
>
> To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
> Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
> Asians aswell from there.
>
> Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
> hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without
> really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
> celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
> Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
> utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task
> for the WMF.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Erlend Bjørtvedt
> WMNO


This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note:
as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that
the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We
occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and
editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the
group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the
volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other
part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have
happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities
and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have
happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like
anywhere else.

-- phoebe
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no> wrote:
> To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
> Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
> Asians aswell from there.


India, anyone?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are
you all posted there?

;-)
Erlend, WMNO


2013/4/30 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@gmail.com>

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear Nathan,
> > I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send
> > funds" away to weak chapters.
> > The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
> > made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in
> the
> > hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong.
> That
> > is disastreous.
> >
> > To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in
> Hong
> > Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
> > Asians aswell from there.
> >
> > Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can
> > hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco
> without
> > really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth
> > celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the
> > Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best
> > utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious
> task
> > for the WMF.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Erlend Bjørtvedt
> > WMNO
>
>
> This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note:
> as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that
> the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We
> occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and
> editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the
> group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the
> volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other
> part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have
> happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities
> and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have
> happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like
> anywhere else.
>
> -- phoebe
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227
http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com>wrote:

> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
> Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?


I think this exact point is often overlooked.
I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thing.

I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the
content of Wikipedia,
and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the
sitenotice for fundraising.
As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside
Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or
maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users.
The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM
entity was then to ask permission to them.

The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia.
So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice
or neither of us.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
hi Erlend,

I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns,
in my view, and I would like to address them.


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no>wrote:

> However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed
> funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees,
> is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed:
> Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the
> first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers,
> another is the under-utilization of critical resources.
>

In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have
different resources and abilities than the large ones.

In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3
categories of applicants:
*

a) the small chapters in incubation phase (typically below 100,000 USD),

b) medium sized mature chapters,

c) large organizations (above 1.000,000 USD).


We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards
of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more
lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their
limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on
organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural
growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and
that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should
have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some
impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not
all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative
growth may be perceived as valuable on its own.

*


> The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased,
> until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very
> low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the
> USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global
> organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a
> reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources
> pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its
> address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than
> in the rest of the world combined?
>

Among seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is
American.

best,

Dariusz ("pundit")
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hey Deryck,

On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:

>>
>> But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a
>> discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?
>
> I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any
>> organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If
>> you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an
>> advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that
>> supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is
>> governance…
>>
>
> From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times
> that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered
> in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the
> reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for
> us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."
>

Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two…

(and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC pointed out).

>>
>> Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the
>> annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website
>> after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but
>> could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under
>> documentation?) Can you point me to it?
>>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf
> (or scroll halfway down the proposal page)
>

Thanks!

Jan-Bart
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hey Florence

On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>
>>
>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
>
> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?

Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.

>
> Supporting
>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
>
> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
> But we may agree to disagree on this.

I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.

>
> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)

True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
>
> It would be a poor use
>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
>> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
>
> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).

Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)

>
> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.

True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.

>
> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.

I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...

> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one.
> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".

I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
>
> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.

I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.

And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.

Jan-Bart



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment.

But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step.

I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-)

Charles

Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org> a écrit :

> Hey Florence
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
>>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
>>
>> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
>
> Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.
>
>>
>> Supporting
>>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
>>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
>>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
>>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
>>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
>>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
>>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
>>
>> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
>> But we may agree to disagree on this.
>
> I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
>
>>
>> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
>
> True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
>>
>> It would be a poor use
>>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
>>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
>>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
>>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
>>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
>>> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
>>
>> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
>
> Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
>
>>
>> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
>
> True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
>
>>
>> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
>
> I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
>
>> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one.
>> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>
> I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
>>
>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
>
> I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
>
> And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.
>
> Jan-Bart
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
>
> Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that
> same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the
> importance of the difference between the two…
>
> People don't instantly agree on everything. There is always something the
WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm
referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then
eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the
settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We
all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an
agreement between WMF and WMHK.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
2013/4/30 Charles Andres <charles.andres.wmch@gmail.com>:
> In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment.
>
> But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step.
>
> I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-)

Hi Charles! That would be really helpful.

I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals
includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both
the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in
advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve
the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of
grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be
addressed with this change in the process. See
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.html
for more details.

Patricio

--
Patricio Lorente
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede <jdevreede@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey Florence
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
> >> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
> >
> > What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
> Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
>
> Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me
> and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the
> FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed
> amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those
> of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are
> divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the
> community review process as a important addition) ensures much more
> transparent processes.
>
> >
> > Supporting
> >> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
> >> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
> >> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
> >> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
> >> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
> >> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
> >> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
> >
> > I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement
> efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision
> made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
> > But we may agree to disagree on this.
>
> I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to
> help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better
> alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters
> and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan
> this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for
> all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for
> others.
>
> >
> > Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current
> stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a
> rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison
> to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may
> have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
>
> True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they
> should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are
> both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of
> luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it
> impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely
> necessary.
> >
> > It would be a poor use
> >> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
> >> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
> >> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
> >> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
> >> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
> >> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
> >
> > I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions
> (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement,
> not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not
> become WMF ones).
>
> Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope
> to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final
> say in these matters as a matter of governance)
>
> >
> > In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What
> I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated
> volunteers to stay healthy.
>
> True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into
> positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
>
> >
> > We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk
> about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
>
> I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in
> Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise
> affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes
> different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and
> keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big
> bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn
> out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those
> problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk
> of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically
> and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
>
> > In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
> outcome. For no-one.
> > And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy
> strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
> mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>
> I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
> >
> > Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do
> not. I do.
>
> I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but
> I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the
> other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are
> not isolated, but they are not the same either.
>
> And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do
> think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and
> reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place
> for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply
> to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any
> funding is being in compliance.
>

Last time I've checked, GAC explicitly disallow proposals for full-time
permanent staffing and administrative costs, stating that FDC is the only
place we can get funding for that.

Having project funding alone wouldn't help - it is precisely because the
grants team disallows the use of project grants for administrative purposes
that WMHK ended up in its current awkward situation.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :

> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
> outcome. For no-one.
> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
> mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>
> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
> do not. I do.
>
> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
>
> Florence
>
>

My personal experience after being an active program committee member
on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there
(and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we
managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only
appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words
from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of
corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014
ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this
job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator
flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me
or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there
are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost
all interest in Wikimania organization.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
use a new thread!

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>
>
> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
>> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
>> outcome. For no-one.
>> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
>> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
>> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
>> mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>>
>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
>> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
>> do not. I do.
>>
>> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
>> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
>> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
>>
>> Florence
>>
>>
>>
> My personal experience after being an active program committee member on
> the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I
> believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed
> to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated
> by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else,
> a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in
> 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking
> whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone
> duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not
> needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that.
> I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I
> can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania
> organization.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania [ In reply to ]
On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> My personal experience after being an active program committee member
> on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there
> (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example,
> we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was
> only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good
> words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind
> of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in
> 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do
> this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki
> administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody
> cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided
> afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my
> community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.

I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for
2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for
2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on
the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee -
<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html>.
Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing
apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise.

Regards,

KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania [ In reply to ]
On 30.04.2013 13:23, Katie Chan wrote:
> On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> My personal experience after being an active program committee member
>> on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there
>> (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example,
>> we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was
>> only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good
>> words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind
>> of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in
>> 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do
>> this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki
>> administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody
>> cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided
>> afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my
>> community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
>
> I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for
> 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for
> 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on
> the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee -
> <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html>.
> Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing
> apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise.
>
> Regards,
>
> KTC

As I said, this is my personal experience, and not a generalization. I
unsubscribed from wikimania-l I believe in 2010, and now I will not do
it again even if personally approached. I am fine with doing community
service, but I am not really fine with being insulted for doing
community service because people do not care to figure out who is doing
what and insult the first person who approaches them.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point
As I heard in Milan
Long time staffing, must go trough FDC
And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management
(I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter
board
But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?)

And going trough these year of struggle for survival
We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff
to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more
"meaningful".

As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck
we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should
never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.

But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.

Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by
young people like us
WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have
such strong feeling
It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be
helpful all the time.

we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the
stuff in working hours
and of course improve the area they accuse us
That's it

(also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund

we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told
them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly
AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME


Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting
I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around
Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will

And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which
again a hell lot volunteer time)
Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through
all these frankly

On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or
ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things
go so inhumane.

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <
jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all

I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.

Normally I would say please don't go,
but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next

And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
whole Wikimania Local Team
I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
volunteer power
after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
and knew most of the stories.

--
Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
http://plasticnews.wf/
http://about.me/jeromyu
UID: Jeromyu
(on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)

Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time
or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and
paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some
basis for a future growth.
WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest years (correct
me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters,
probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and
that can be helpful to imagine what you can do.

*Osmar Valdebenito G.*
Director Ejecutivo
A. C. Wikimedia Argentina


2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com>

> I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point
> As I heard in Milan
> Long time staffing, must go trough FDC
> And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management
> (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter
> board
> But what do you expect if they have day time or/& studies?)
>
> And going trough these year of struggle for survival
> We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff
> to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more
> "meaningful".
>
> As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck
> we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should
> never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
> to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
>
> But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
> worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
>
> Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by
> young people like us
> WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have
> such strong feeling
> It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be
> helpful all the time.
>
> we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the
> stuff in working hours
> and of course improve the area they accuse us
> That's it
>
> (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund
>
> we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told
> them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly
> AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME
>
>
> Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting
> I know there are always some good & helpful staff and people around
> Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are & will
>
> And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which
> again a hell lot volunteer time)
> Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through
> all these frankly
>
> On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or
> ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things
> go so inhumane.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, "Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)" <
> jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this.
>
> Normally I would say please don't go,
> but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already
> and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next
>
> And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the
> whole Wikimania Local Team
> I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our
> volunteer power
> after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board
> and knew most of the stories.
>
> --
> Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry
> http://plasticnews.wf/
> http://about.me/jeromyu
> UID: Jeromyu
> (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk & most sites)
>
> Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601
> Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
hi Jeromy-Yu,

thank you for sharing this personal note.

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <
jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:

> As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck
> we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should
> never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had
> to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
>

I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should
never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related
only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well
as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the
estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities,
etc.).

I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation


> But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the
> worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
>

I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been
our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the
volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is
something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I
also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on
its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded
separately).

best,

dariusz ("pundit")
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Is there any (un)official policy/strong advice/anything against direct
hiring from WMF/FDC/whatever grants?

Balazs


2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>

> hi Jeromy-Yu,
>
> thank you for sharing this personal note.
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan <
> jerry.tschan.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is
> bottleneck
> > we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should
> > never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As
> > without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone
> had
> > to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies.
> >
>
> I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should
> never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related
> only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well
> as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the
> estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities,
> etc.).
>
> I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation
>
>
> > But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect)
> > irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development,
> the
> > worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers.
> >
>
> I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been
> our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the
> volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is
> something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I
> also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on
> its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded
> separately).
>
> best,
>
> dariusz ("pundit")
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit :
> I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could
> use a new thread!

Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for
his effort and involvement.

And boy... is that sad :(

Flo


>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>
>
> On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
>>
>>> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>>
>>
>> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
>>> plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good
>>> outcome. For no-one.
>>> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
>>> Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development,
>>> fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum,
>>> mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>>>
>>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
>>> respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we
>>> do not. I do.
>>>
>>> And I think that even though you are free to think funding this
>>> chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human
>>> perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
>>>
>>> Florence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My personal experience after being an active program committee member on
>> the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I
>> believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed
>> to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated
>> by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else,
>> a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in
>> 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking
>> whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone
>> duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not
>> needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that.
>> I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I
>> can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania
>> organization.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Le 4/30/13 11:22 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede a écrit :
> Hey Florence
>
> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
>>> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
>>
>> What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
>
> Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.

No worry there. I know the board is largely (or unanimously ?)
supporting the concept of FDC. My question was definitly to Nathan...



>>
>> Supporting
>>> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
>>> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
>>> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
>>> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
>>> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
>>> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
>>> way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
>>
>> I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
>> But we may agree to disagree on this.
>
> I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
>
>>
>> Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
>
> True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.

True. But I would argue that's in good part because we had so little
that things were operated in a "bad" way. And it is not because WMF was
so tight on money for its first 3-4 years of operations that we should
somehow make it so that all organizations should also go through such
pains.


>> It would be a poor use
>>> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
>>> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
>>> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
>>> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
>>> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
>>> criticism and Sue's impending departure.
>>
>> I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
>
> Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
>
>>
>> In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
>
> True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.

Yup :)
Which is why I stepped down at last year elections on WM FR board. I am
really glad I did it. I knew this year was going to be really tough. And
it is not deceiving me.... annus horribilis :(

>
>>
>> We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
>
> I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...

I do not think WMF bureaucracy is to blame in this case.

>> In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one.
>> And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
>
> I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
>>
>> Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
>
> I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
>
> And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.

Yeah, but the rules of the GAC probably need to be refreshed so that it
can cover administrative costs which would not be directly related to a
specific project but would be more general support to an organization
(this organization would still need to show decent programming of
course). Admin stuff is probably what is right now toughest for most
organizations.

I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in
France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things
together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.).
Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired
secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the
association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer
entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members).
In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership
fees. Oftenly, the city or the region offers a free-of-charge office
corner in a public building. With only one full time or 50% time
secretary knowing all details of the association, the members of these
associations do miracles because they are relieved of the burden of
doing paperworks, renting spaces, giving phone calls, sending general
assemblies invitation, sending receipt, cashing checks and doing doodles
to organize meetings. In most cases where I have seen this secretary
position missing, the association is suffering because members get stuck
in simple paperwork stuff. That's sad. Just a stable position of the
sort can change things dramatically and balance the turnover of members.

But this recipe which I think is generally a good practice amongst such
associations is not possible for our organizations through the GAC
system and pushes them toward the FDC at a much too early stage of
development.

Compliance or lack there-of is a different issue.

Flo

> Jan-Bart
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard <anthere9@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process,
> but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his
> effort and involvement.
>
> And boy... is that sad :(
>
> Flo
>

Agreed, and I'll say it: to Yaroslav and everyone else who slaves away to
make Wikimania work... thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

pb

___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe@wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Florence Devouard wrote:
>I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in
>France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things
>together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.).
>Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired
>secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the
>association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer
>entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members).

Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States
as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy
number of Wikimedia chapters.

>In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership
>fees.

The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this
need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little
seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are
met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hello everyone again.

Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or
privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.

I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and
subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal
attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
comment any more on this matter.

Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
measures for local volunteers.

Deryck

On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:

> Dear trusty Wikimedians,
>
> The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
> overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> of our FDC proposal.
>
> At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
> my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
>
> My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and
> of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff
> to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia
> chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> Wikimedia.
>
> My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff
> manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
>
> WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal
> about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request
> for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with
> the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to
> professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> was rejected.
>
> And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
>
> My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> and the frustration?
>
> Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more
> traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity
> as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
> toddlers by their full marathon times.
>
> Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary
> idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
> chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
> and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
> studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
> WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
> where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
> environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent
> helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration
> work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
>
> But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my
> fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading.
> I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for
> volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
>
> I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts
> will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and
> staffing.
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html
>
> With Wiki-Love,
> Deryck
>
> PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send
> this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't
> subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want
> to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of
> proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that
> my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Hi, Deryck.

Thank you. Apology accepted. I look forward to working with WMHK on a
suitable plan for development (even right now, though I'm guessing WMHK has
its hands full till after Wikimania).

Cheers,

Asaf


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk>wrote:

> Hello everyone again.
>
> Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or
> privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
>
> I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and
> subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal
> attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
> recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
> people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
> filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
> determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
> comment any more on this matter.
>
> Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
> of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
> measures for local volunteers.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:
>
> > Dear trusty Wikimedians,
> >
> > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
> an
> > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> > of our FDC proposal.
> >
> > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
> > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
> and
> > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
> staff
> > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
> Wikimedia
> > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> > Wikimedia.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
> staff
> > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
> >
> > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
> vocal
> > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
> request
> > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
> with
> > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
> to
> > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> > was rejected.
> >
> > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
> >
> > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> > and the frustration?
> >
> > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
> more
> > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement
> entity
> > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
> > toddlers by their full marathon times.
> >
> > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary
> > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
> > chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
> > and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
> > studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
> > WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters
> professionalise.
> >
> > I was wrong.
> >
> > With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
> > where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
> > environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better
> spent
> > helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration
> > work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
> >
> > But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my
> > fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement
> heading.
> > I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for
> > volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
> >
> > I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable
> efforts
> > will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and
> > staffing.
> >
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html
> >
> > With Wiki-Love,
> > Deryck
> >
> > PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send
> > this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't
> > subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I
> want
> > to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of
> > proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so
> that
> > my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [ In reply to ]
Dear Deryck,

many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not
assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will
not die out completely.

One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your
personal capacity, but representing the chapter (it would be logical if
only the organizations, which are dissatisfied with the results related to
them, could complain). The deadline is also quite short, 7 days from the
day the recommendations were published.

best,

dariusz


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:

> Hello everyone again.
>
> Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or
> privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
>
> I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and
> subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal
> attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I
> recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt
> people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already
> filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm
> determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't
> comment any more on this matter.
>
> Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out
> of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive
> measures for local volunteers.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:
>
> > Dear trusty Wikimedians,
> >
> > The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
> > assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
> > endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
> an
> > overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
> > of our FDC proposal.
> >
> > At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
> > resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
> > Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
> > my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced
> > me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
> and
> > of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
> > about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
> > with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
> > it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting
> > fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
> staff
> > to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
> Wikimedia
> > chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
> > Wikimedia.
> >
> > My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
> > totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
> staff
> > manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
> >
> > WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
> > WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
> vocal
> > about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
> > better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
> request
> > for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
> > payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
> > Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
> with
> > the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
> to
> > professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
> > was rejected.
> >
> > And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
> > aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
> > have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
> > ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
> > trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
> >
> > My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony
> > and the frustration?
> >
> > Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
> > because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
> > movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
> > particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
> more
> > traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
> > enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
> > charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement
> entity
> > as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
> > toddlers by their full marathon times.
> >
> > Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary
> > idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
> > chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
> > and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
> > studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
> > WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters
> professionalise.
> >
> > I was wrong.
> >
> > With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
> > where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
> > environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better
> spent
> > helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration
> > work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
> >
> > But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my
> > fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement
> heading.
> > I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for
> > volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
> >
> > I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable
> efforts
> > will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and
> > staffing.
> >
> http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html
> >
> > With Wiki-Love,
> > Deryck
> >
> > PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send
> > this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't
> > subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I
> want
> > to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of
> > proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so
> that
> > my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarzÄ…dzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l