Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

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

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


deryckchan at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 8:36 AM

Post #26 of 73 (678 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [In reply to]

On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin <cfranklin [at] halonetwork> 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 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


valdelli at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 8:47 AM

Post #27 of 73 (688 views)
Permalink
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 [at] alk>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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 8:53 AM

Post #28 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [In reply to]

On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


darekj at alk

Apr 29, 2013, 9:13 AM

Post #29 of 73 (691 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--

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


polimerek at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 11:20 AM

Post #30 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [In reply to]

2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj [at] alk>:

> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


markus.glaser at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 11:23 AM

Post #31 of 73 (682 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 12:56 PM

Post #32 of 73 (676 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia>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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jdevreede at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 12:59 PM

Post #33 of 73 (681 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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


sarah.stierch at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 1:01 PM

Post #34 of 73 (681 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


dgerard at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 1:02 PM

Post #35 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [In reply to]

On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


jdevreede at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 1:03 PM

Post #36 of 73 (676 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan [at] gmail>
> > Date: 29 Apr 2013 12:42
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
> > to everyone
> > To: <cfranklin [at] halonetwork>
> > Cc: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> >
> > 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 [at] halonetwork> 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 [at] gmail> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>

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


jdevreede at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 1:10 PM

Post #37 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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


jdevreede at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 1:15 PM

Post #38 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


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


christophe.henner at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 1:19 PM

Post #39 of 73 (675 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone [In reply to]

On 29 April 2013 17:53, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


deryckchan at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 1:25 PM

Post #40 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer <tbayer [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


deyntestiss at hotmail

Apr 29, 2013, 1:33 PM

Post #41 of 73 (681 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


erlend at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 2:28 PM

Post #42 of 73 (682 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail>

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan [at] wikimedia
> >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 [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nawrich at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 3:04 PM

Post #43 of 73 (679 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


anthere9 at yahoo

Apr 29, 2013, 4:12 PM

Post #44 of 73 (682 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



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


nawrich at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 4:32 PM

Post #45 of 73 (679 views)
Permalink
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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


erlend at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 4:57 PM

Post #46 of 73 (688 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail>

> 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 [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


simon.shek at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 5:02 PM

Post #47 of 73 (683 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 5:14 PM

Post #48 of 73 (681 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia>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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


p858snake at gmail

Apr 29, 2013, 5:49 PM

Post #49 of 73 (683 views)
Permalink
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 [at] wikimedia> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


erlend at wikimedia

Apr 29, 2013, 5:50 PM

Post #50 of 73 (680 views)
Permalink
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 [at] gmail>

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend [at] wikimedia
> >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 [at] lists
> 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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.