Talk:Funds Dissemination Committee/Nominations/Archive/2012

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

(moved from main page)

One comment on the starter list...with all due respect to the people on the list and my wonderful boss who got the list started, I would love to see us generate a list with a wider set of leaders in the community. As a proportion of total names suggested, the list above has too many former WMF board members and advisory board members on it. Nothing against participation of experienced hands, but we should seek to widen the leadership space. --Barry Newstead (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. This is just a start, with some super-obvious names on it. I am hoping people will add lots more, lesser-known potential candidates. I think we probably want to do some active outreach to non-English non-European non-American Wikimedians, and try to prod them particularly to add names -- particularly of any Global South folks who have Wikimedia governance experience, chapter experience, and/or experience with non-Wikimedia NGOs or grant-making institutions. It would be great if people reading this could ping their colleagues for help here. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the intention of gaining a wider perspective involves hearing voices that one disagrees with. I see some good names listed in the brainstorming list but hardly anyone who spoke up about the contentious side of fundraising issue or disagreed. Tango, is a good candidate so far but I really don't see anyone with a financial background. I suppose it speaks to the eventual outcome of the committee itself, without much disagreement, conflicting opinions, this might turn into.....just another committee. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote of confidence. I agree that we need people that are willing to express their opinions, even if they aren't in the majority. I hope there won't actually be too much disagreement, though. At least for the next few years, I think there will be enough money to go around, so the FDC will mostly just be doing objective analyses of whether plans are realistic and whether they will further our goals - there shouldn't be too much disagreement there. If we get to the point where the fundraiser can't keep up with the growth of planned spending, then the FDC will need to start doing subjective comparisons of plans and decide which ones to fund at the expense of others - that's where we might start to get significant disagreement. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas[edit]

  • If she's got time I think Dr. Jane Richardson (listed on the brainstormed list) would be a great choice, and would provide an "outside" view although she is also an editor; as an experienced and prominent academic she also brings substantial grant review and grant receiving experience (I'm not making a formal nomination because I don't know if she's willing to do it, although I am happy to ask on our behalf!)
  • We should also think about mining the advisory board, bearing in mind that many of those folks don't have a lot of time
  • it would be great to see member(s) with experience from several different sized entities -- so smaller or newer chapters as well as larger ones, as well as perspectives from various parts of the world.

-- phoebe | talk 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can't the advisory board just be expanded further. This is an advisory group from what I recall, I don't much see the point of moving advisers from one group to the other. I would like to see more candidates with financial background. Theo10011 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations?[edit]

Hey. I've been looking for a means to contribute at the foundation level, and I think I could contribute positively, but the page doesn't make the nomination process very clear. The Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for Volunteers just says to add one's name to this page and we'll be contacted to add a statement later, but there doesn't seem to be a section for that.  :-) — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, all we have is a proposal from Sue. The actual decisions by the WMF board about how the FDC will work haven't been made yet. Once they are, the nomination process can start properly. --Tango (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be bold, Coren, and just add your name under the Nominations and Self Nominations section. :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 06:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After consultation with my work and family to ensure I would have the ability to dedicate the necessary time and effort, I did just that.  :-) — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 15:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominations are currently almost all native English speakers (with the only exception being a French Canadian that primarily edits the English Wikipedia, so not much of an exception!). Ability to work in English is a requirement, but we do need some diversity in native language. Are there any plans to reach out to the non-English community and encourage people to stand? If not, can we create such a plan? --Tango (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few hours ago, a call for volunteers was posted on over 600 village pumps. :) Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 00:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only 600? You're just not trying! ;) --Tango (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can do my best to type with ze French accent, oui?  :-) — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment (:])『 私は英語が得意ではないのと、日本語版の記事編集がブロックされているため、その参加資格がないように思えます。普段通りRFCが存在する場合に参加する事にします。 --MOTOI Kenkichi (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate says: "Order and not good at English, the Japanese version of the article is edited, is blocked, and I do not seem to have that qualification. "We decided to participate in the RFC if there is as usual." I'm not sure what page this is referring to... --Tango (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment -> Mr. Tango (:]) That title of Nominations?'s commentary is.--MOTOI Kenkichi (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for candidates[edit]

During the Board elections, people are encouraged to ask questions of candidates. I also find those Q-and-As useful, particularly in helping me assess candidates who are new to me. (I choose not to vote in the Board elections, because voting feels to me mildly inappropriate given my position, but I am interested in the process and the people.) I think it would be helpful to the Board if there were a process for people to ask questions of the FDC candidates. But I think ideally the process would be super-simple and lightweight. Should we just post questions here on the talk page, and the candidates can answer them as their time permits? Sue Gardner (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a subpage would be better - a Q&A layout is a little different from a regular talk page layout, so it's probably best not to try and merge the two. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Felt bold and started a Q&A page here :) --AutoGyro (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound like a good idea. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 01:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So who's going to ask the first question? Smallbones (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've posed a few questions for all candidates. Tony (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please could someone point nominees towards the questioning page? Given the organic nature that this nomination process is using to grow (which is a good approach!), not all nominees will necessarily be aware of the next steps, such as this Q&A page. I only just found out about it by the Signpost... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum information in candidate statements[edit]

Pedro De Abreu, candidate for ombudsperson. No link to user page (what's his username?). One-line statement that means little. This counts as a nuisance candidature, unless he can be contacted and requested to improve it. Tony (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived: Potential Members / Brainstorms[edit]

(moved from main page)

Brainstormed list of potential FDC candidates (taken from m:Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC_Proposal_for_the_Board)

Further criteria[edit]

Since there are now 34 candidates who have been nominated and an additional list of brainstormed candidates, I imagine there may be many more than 9 who meet the membership criteria. So are there further criteria for selecting FDC members from among eligible candidates? I've scanned the membership criteria and noted this:

"The FDC membership (as a whole) should have the following skills and attributes:

  • Experience directing or evaluating programs;
  • Grant-making expertise (either as a grantee or grantor of funds);
  • Exposure to, understanding of, and personal credibility in the Wikimedia movement (that is, experience in programs, chapters, or administrative roles within the Wikimedia movement);
  • And gender, geographic and linguistic diversity."

Since the FDC is an excellent idea, but also a novel one, my interest remains in ensuring that it starts on a note of high credibility, including in its choice of members. Just curious on the evolution of thinking on this. Bishdatta (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial FDC is being selected by the Board, so it is up to you and your colleagues. Note that it is not clear that all current candidates actually meet these criteria. Anasuya will be following up with each candidate to better ascertain background and verify interest in the position (at least some candidates seem perhaps a bit confused), and this input will perhaps help the board. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 21:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For next time[edit]

I suggest that more explicit guidelines be provided for FDC candidate statements, to avoid the current situation where it's hard to tell whether many of the candidates are suitable, and to enable the board to weigh them up against each other without having to delegate someone to probe them (this situation is exactly what I've been trying to avoid with the actual application form, without much success). Candidates should at least be asked to address the criteria for membership.

There are no skills/background criteria for the ombudsperson. They should probably be written into the framework doc for next time.

Perhaps there could be an explicit time after the close of noms—maybe a week?—for the Q&A process to continue. Otherwise, the system, in one respect, favours those who nominate at the last minute.

Tony (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that there were no sample questions for the Ombudsman role and the description of the role was quite vague. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sample questions, of course, I meant there was no section for questions for the Ombudsman. And none asked, that I saw. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, appointing the ombudsman is going to be a problem. Most of the nominations show no understanding of what it is they are nominating themselves for. There are one or two candidates with potential (it would be inappropriate of me to say who, but I doubt anyone could come to a different conclusion) but I think the board may need to reopen nominations in order to get enough good nominations for them to be able to make a good decision (you don't want someone getting the job because they were the only person nominated that wasn't deemed unsuitable for some reason). --Tango (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opening is not a good look. Tony (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal, no. --Tango (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good suggestions, and well worth considering for the next time. I think the role that the framework delineates for the Ombudsperson is quite clear, though having separate questions are important and useful. I think we were uncertain about the level of community response, and were guided by the clarity of the first movers on this. So thanks, --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As community onlookers, we'll have to admit that it eluded us at the time, too. Tony (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews[edit]

So, when will the interviews take place, and how will they be held - should candidates expect to receive an email about this soon? Also, please could you specify whether the questions should be answered on-wiki or otherwise? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews will take place next week and into the first week of September - they will be conducted (virtually) by me, and I will be reaching out interviewees once I have the shortlist from the Board - with the incredible response we have had, this is naturally taking a little longer than anticipated, so we are pushing back the date of announcement of the final FDC to the second week of September (I will do my best to offer a date as soon as possible). --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hope that the dates for the in-person meetings aren't set in stone in advance of the FDC selection, and will take into account the timetables and availability of the FDC members? Personally, I was expecting that the meetings will be more centered on the weekends than weekdays (particularly since ending, presumably late, on a Wednesday effectively writes off the whole working week in the UK), and even more personally/specific to myself, I have an existing (and non-standard) commitment on October 31st, since I'm co-organising a meeting that day. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you expect volunteers to travel to a meeting, it has to be at the weekend. Taking a day or two off work is probably unavoidable, but you can't ask people to take four days off. I'd also suggest having a gap between the meeting and making the recommendations (which don't need to be made in person). The recommendations (and reasons for them) will all have to be written up, which shouldn't happen during a meeting (drafting reports in committee is incredibly inefficient!). --Tango (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The in person meetings are scheduled for 29-31 October currently because for the very first round of the FDC deliberations, we need two things that we will not need in future iterations (or as much): a meeting with Board members, if possible, and a face to face orientation process. In addition, the Board representatives for the FDC will also have to stay on for the meeting; the Board meeting ends on 28 October. We are doing our best to plan orientation sessions virtually before the F2F meeting, but it is important to have the FDC members in the room together. The FDC will obviously make the final decision on process, but in my experience, it is never a good idea around funds allocation to have a gap between a decision-making meeting and writing up the recommendations. It is best done at once, with everyone in the room (literally and metaphorically), so there is absolute clarity and integrity to the process. In the future, we will certainly be doing our best to make these meetings two days long and on the weekend, but this once, it has been very hard to do, for the reasons I've just stated. My apologies in advance to all (potential) FDC members! --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree. Writing up should never take place with everyone in the room. I've drafted things in committee meetings before and it is the most inefficient process known to man. You make the decisions, you give someone the job of writing them up, everyone comments on the complete draft, changes are made, and then you approve the report. Trying to have everyone involved in producing the first draft is an incredibly bad idea. --Tango (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of both is good, yes? As long as it doesn't bog down the meeting, important texts might be struck up and read out for comment on the spot; but I agree that it's rarely possible to produce a finished text at a meeting. I've seen initial text proposed in one session, then one or two people with experience at language drafting have a go at it during a recess, or overnight, then put it to the next session of the meeting. That can sometimes work if the timing is urgent. Someone at the WMF who's quite independent from the meeting could always be asked to take a look, too: distance is a wonderful thing when developing complex processes and composing related text. Tony (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed process[edit]

Who is proposing this process? (This has been a recurring issue - can all proposals please be signed?) Whoever is proposing it, who do you intend to put together the shortlist? I strongly object to the draft interview questions. Anyone who has bothered to read the statements and Q&A responses should not need to ask the vast majority of those questions. I also advise against the FDC staff being so heavily involved in the process. They are supposed to support the FDC, not choose it - the whole point of this process is to reduce the role of WMF staff in decisions about funds dissemination. (Don't underestimate the influence that whoever puts together these kinds of summaries has.) If the WMF board does not feel that they have the time to review all the applications fully (although I strongly suggest they find the time - it's an important decision) then I suggest the Advisory Group conduct the initial review. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that User:ASengupta (WMF) posted the process, I expect that she's the one setting it out. I note that there are members of the Advisory Group standing for the FDC, so if the Advisory Group is going to undertake the initial review then it needs to figure out its potential COI first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She posted the questions. The process was posted by User:Meerachary TBG. When someone from TBG posts something like that, it usually means they've just come from a meeting with someone and are writing up the results, but they have a habit of not saying who the meeting was with. Obviously those Advisory Group members that are standing would need to recuse. I don't think the group has been together long enough for them to have developed a significant bias towards their peers. I would rather the WMF board make their own assessment, though. If they didn't want the job, they could have organised an election - it could have been done pretty quickly if they had really wanted to. --Tango (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is TBG - that's not a username extension that's recorded at Staff account creation (probably since it's not WMF or a chapter, but still)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridgespan Group. They are consultancy firm the WMF has hired to help facilitate the design process for the FDC. They worked on the strategy plan and a few other things, too. --Tango (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks. They should probably register and conform to a standard username extension... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify this from now out, any material posted by the Bridgespan group is posted only after consultation with me. In particular, it is likely to be Meera, who has been working closely with me throughout this process. About the questions, the reason for having an additional round of interviews, is to offer our serious nominees a chance to ask me in more detail about the role and responsibilities, as well as for us to overcome the bias against non-native English speakers, who might not have written in as much detail, but are nonetheless critical candidates for the Board to consider. At all times, I am offering the Board and the Advisory Group members this additional support, only as exactly that - *support* - not as decisions. The final decisions rest entirely with the Board. The Advisory Group members who have nominated themselves will obviously not be part of the selection process. --ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this is a much-needed step. It would be hard to go from the 42 candidates to the final 7 without an interim process, such as this one. Bishdatta (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conducting interviews and reporting back is a lot more than "support". It is a critical and highly influencial part of the decision making process. This is a recurring theme - the WMF seems to be massively underestimating the influence that someone producing summaries and reports has. There is no such thing as an objective summary. --Tango (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be influencial. In different degrees. And that's true for everyone doing this, regardless of being staff, being community member, being external. As you said, there is no absolute objectivity. Why do you think we are underestimating this? I would like to ask for some confidence, especially when there is no evidence for unfair behaviour. I appreciate this support and I am still able to form my own opinion (and I have no doubt that that's true for the whole board). --Alice Wiegand (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is being underestimated because I keep getting responses from the WMF that my concerns are moot because the staff are providing purely objective support and aren't involved in any decisions. --Tango (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest[edit]

I understand that according to the membership criteria, "To be eligible for the FDC, members must: ... be able to set aside any conflicts of interest and work towards the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement without considering individual or organizational interests. Staff / board members of entities requesting funds from the FDC may serve on the FDC; however, they must recuse themselves from deliberations pertaining to their entity's application."

However, in my view chapter officials should not even serve on the committee, as this would inevitably result in the formation of backscratching alliances, and in some chapters being given an avenue for behind-the-scenes campaigning not open to others. To give an analogy, directors of construction companies do not get to sit on government boards awarding construction contracts, and for good reason. You still get shenanigans, but closing the obvious loopholes is just a question of exercising minimum due diligence. --JN466 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone with that COI, I do not expect this to be a problem. Your assumption that this would end up with behind-the-scenes alliances and campaigning is really assuming bad faith - I would be very surprised if this happened (and personally I would not participate in any such behaviour). You're translating the methods and ethics of those that are paid to work for for-profit organisations, to volunteers that are contributing their time for to non-profit/charitable organisations, and that translation simply does not work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Assume Good Faith" is a great policy when writing an collaborative encyclopaedia. It's not so simple when you are dealing with 11 million dollars. I would also be surprised if there was any misconduct as explicit as that Jayen describes, but that doesn't mean there isn't an issue. The FDC needs to consider all the applications collectively (especially if there isn't enough money to go around), which means you can't just recuse from the bits that involve your organisation. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the foundation has laid claim to a fixed proportion of the FDC's $11.4M (a very reasonable thing to do—is it $4.1M? I can't recall exactly.), there seems to be no scope for conflict of interest concerning foundation vs other requests. Tony (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the amount the WMF is planning on requesting from the FDC. It isn't any more guaranteed than anyone else's application. What would be the point in going through the FDC is the FDC didn't actually have a say? --Tango (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was presuming that the WMF would make a number of applications; but now you've made me wonder whether it will be just a single application for its $4-point-something million. It's rather an exact dollar amount, and the foundation is the only entity to have announced at an early stage what it will be drawing (hopes to draw?) from the FDC's kitty. Will the FDC's brief to recommend to the board 100–120% of pre-existing funding in its initial Rounds 1 and 2 apply to the WMF's applications? Presumably, the staff, community, and FDC will scrutinise the bundled specific projects that will be part of the foundation's application(s). It remains to be seen why the FDC is being used in this way. Tony (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big difference between the FDC and the GAC is that FDC grants are general operating grants to fund your annual plan (and the details of how you spend it are up to you, although if you don't follow your plan without a good reason, you can expect some difficult questions next year), rather than to fund specific projects, as the GAC does. That means each applicant, including the WMF, will only make one application to the FDC. You can expect the FDC to consider the individual projects proposed by each applicant, but they won't actually make recommendations regarding individual projects, just the total amount of money. The 100-120% guideline can't really apply to the WMF, since there isn't a last year's figure to have 100-120% of. It's only a guideline anyway - the FDC will make its own decisions about what to recommend. --Tango (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GAC receives also annual plans from smaller chapters of from chapters not eligible. --Ilario (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's because of the difference in the type of grant. It is felt that newer chapters (not smaller chapters - the idea of having a minimum grant size for the FDC didn't make the final draft) are better off being funded by project specific grants, rather than annual plan grants, until they have a track record of successful and effective spending. --Tango (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Tango, the board has declared that the "sole purpose" of the FDC is "to make recommendations to the Wikimedia Foundation for funding activities and initiatives in support of the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement." It expects the FDC to "assess impact, promote transparency and stability, support decentralized programs, promote responsibility and accountability". This cannot be done without examining the details of specific programs. Otherwise, why go to the bother and expense of having the committee, since the staff are managing the retrospective financial auditing and reporting. Tony (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the contradiction? --Tango (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that misconduct is not always an issue of evil intent. (I am happy to provide examples from Wikipedia history.) People are human, want to be liked, and are more likely to address the needs of those whom they are in regular contact with (including representatives of chapters with a seat on the committee) than those they don't socialise with regularly. This is human nature. What feels like helping out a mate to the person doing it can be seen as evil backscratching and favouritism by the jaundiced outside observer who feels their needs have not been given the same consideration. --JN466 08:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you might be a person of unparalleled integrity (though remember that any director of a construction company might say the same about himself), but it is hubris to assume that everyone coming after you will be too. Setting up committees like this with inbuilt conflicts of interests – and hoping that people now and in perpetuity will be big enough to rise above them – is the height of folly. Apart from that, this arrangement preprograms future discontent, because given the number of chapters and the size of the committee, only a minority of chapters can ever have representation on the committee. The set-up that is being envisaged here is naive and unprofessional. --JN466 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query terminology[edit]

Could someone explain what "FDC envelope" means, in Notice_for_nominees:_timing_of_orientation_and_training? My guess is that this refers to the balancing act the committee will need to perform WRT the size and number of applications it approves. Is there a clearer way of expressing this overleaf? Tony (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just means the amount of money the FDC has available to allocate. --Tango (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it means induction that sets out whether the FDC uses DL, No. 11, or A5 envelopes. This sort of jargon should be avoided. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all -- I changed the language to make it more clear based on this feedback.