Grants:APG/FDC portal/FDC recommendations/2012-2013 round1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
FDC recommendation to the board for all proposals: 2012-2013 round1

» Certification from the Executive Director to the Board
» Board decision

Introduction[edit]

The inaugural Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), which was formed in September 2012, met for the first time in San Francisco over the period October 28-31 in order to assess the proposals for Round 1 for 2012-2013 and provide recommendations to the WMF Board. The FDC recommendations are given below.

The FDC mandate[edit]

The FDC's mandate is to recommend to the WMF Board allocations of Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities, based on an assessment of the ability of eligible entities to realise movement goals. The FDC allocations are in the form of general funds to support the annual plans of entities, which cover staff and other operational costs as well as program expenses. While this implies trust in each entity that receives FDC support, it also implies great responsibility and accountability from the entities to ensure that the expenditure of movement resources has the highest possible impact. As a result, the FDC primarily assesses the ability of entities to execute their plans responsibly and efficiently (organisational effectiveness), alongside the likely impact of the initiatives and activities of the entities (programmatic effectiveness). The FDC process intends to support entities who, in turn, work on building editorship and readership in their communities, and supporting access and content on the different Wikimedia projects. We hope that over time the FDC will be ensuring that lessons from across different entities and the regions, languages and communities they support will be effectively shared with the global Wikimedia movement.

Recommendations[edit]

Name of
entity
Amount
requested (USD)
Recommended
allocation (USD)
Comments and observations
WMAR 146,854 146,854
  • WMAR is on a healthy path to organizational maturity and has a track record of success with previous annual plans.
  • The FDC recommends funding as requested, and at the same time encourages the chapter to be watchful of rapid budget growth.
WMAT 241,088 220,000
  • WMAT is in an early build-up phase regarding staffing and has a track record of success with previous annual plans.
  • The FDC has concerns around the chapter's ability to execute the proposed plan with its rapid increase in costs, considering the limited experience of hired staff, and therefore recommends a lower allocation than requested.
WMAU 291,115 0
  • WMAU pioneered working with the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM), which subsequently became a global program. It had done good work to further promote GLAM by working with State Library of Queensland, and its initiative to improve the content on Paralympics is laudable.
  • While the FDC does believe that WMAU has the ability to undertake positive programmatic activities, the compliance aspects of previous grants, and gaps in the present proposal with regard to alignment and metrics, are major concerns. Therefore, the FDC recommends that WMAU apply for bridge funding through the Wikimedia Grants Program, without beginning recruitment for a staff member. After this, WMAU may apply in Round 2 with a revised annual plan/proposal, which includes the staffing plan.
  • We recommend that the Board makes an exception to the FDC framework in WMAU's case to accept a Round 2 proposal if it should chose to apply.
WMCH 560,000 362,000
  • WMCH projects "Swiss Herbarium", "Support to Kiwix Project" and "Valdensia" project are laudable.
  • WMCH is well positioned for impact, given its participation in several large language Wikipedias. The chapter supports many interesting programs (e.g. GLAM and community initiatives) that are aligned with movement priorities. However the FDC sees the growth projected as per the annual plan as highly ambitious and would encourage the chapter to review the plan and adopt a more sustainable pace of growth.
WMDE 1,820,000 1,790,000
  • WMDE has credibility and a strong reputation in the broader Wikimedia movement.
  • The plan demonstrates a diverse set of programs which are resourced to achieve impact in the movement, and is funded by a diverse funding base, without too much reliance on the FDC for funding support.
  • The FDC is also pleased to see that the chapter is setting up an evaluation unit, and considering an evaluation/metrics framework to measure impact of its many activities.
  • The FDC has some concerns around community health and the effectiveness of strategies for editor recruitment, in addition to concerns around the relatively high administrative costs outlined to support the chapter. The FDC encourages the chapter's further strategic thinking about supporting editing communities, and its growth trajectory.
  • Based on this assessment, the FDC recommends full funding, less WCA membership fees (more detail on this outlined below).
WMF 4,459,000 4,459,000*
  • WMF has pioneered editor engagement and the global education program, but it has reported mixed results. There were concerns about impact of these programs with respect to the amount of funds invested. While the FDC appreciates the focus on Global South, the geographical expense breakdown was not available.
  • The activities of WMF outlined, particularly with the recently announced narrowing of focus, seem to be honing in on movement priorities around increasing participation and content (particularly in under-served areas of the world).
  • WMF has significant staffing resources and has grown to obtain other resources to execute the ambitious program proposed.
  • More clarity is needed around precise measures of success and SMART milestones, as well as systems to measure and evaluate impact of all programs, particularly as we believe that WMF should be a role model in this regard.
WMFR 961,109 94,000
  • While the FDC does think that WMFR has potential to have positive impact, we had significant concerns about the proposal and the chapter’s overall current ability to execute its proposed annual plan effectively.
  • Therefore, the FDC recommends bridge funding from the FDC to allow WMFR to cover essential costs from January till June 2013, and encourages WMFR to apply in Round 2. We recommend that the Board makes an exception in WMFR's case to accept a Round 2 proposal if it should apply.
WMHU 67,477 67,477
  • WMHU has had a track record of successful activities, consistent reporting, and compliance.
  • The submitted proposal represents a transition to a staff-based model, which presents both challenges and opportunities for the organization.
  • There are some concerns around the ability of the proposed activities to lead to significant impact; over time, more clarity is needed around measures of success and systems to measure and evaluate impact. The FDC encourages the chapter to create and implement activities and programs with high potential impact.
WMIL 145,026 141,172
  • The current FDC proposal represents a transition to a staff-based model, which presents both challenges and opportunities for the organization.
  • The FDC had some concerns around the large year-over-year increase in budget without accompanying depth of planning, and encourage WMIL to submit a more complete and detailed proposal in following years than it did for this round.
  • Over time, the FDC encourages the chapter to develop more clarity around measures of success and systems to measure and evaluate outcomes and impact.
  • Based on this assessment, the FDC recommends full funding, less WCA membership fees (more detail on this is set out below).
WMNL 471,445 350,000
  • WMNL has a track record of success, notably with Wiki Loves Monuments, which has been replicated internationally.
  • In addition, the WMNL chapter has had a track record of consistent compliance and reporting.
  • The FDC is pleased to see a goal of diversifying funding streams for the chapter.
  • The submitted proposal represents an ongoing transition to a staff-based model, which presents both challenges and opportunities for the organization.
  • There are some concerns with the staffing plan; the reasons for growth in certain staff areas is not necessarily clear. In the future, the FDC would expect more of a focus on high impact programs rather than a focus on professionalization, and encourages the chapter to document its learnings as it does so.
WMSE 341,570 341,570**
  • The FDC sees WMSE as a healthy, maturing chapter with a track record of consistent reporting and compliance.
  • The organization is growing quickly, but is balancing that growth with diversified funding sources and staff growth to support additional programmatic emphasis.
  • There are some concerns around the high staffing costs, and we encourage WMSE to be watchful of this as it becomes more efficient and effective.
  • There are some additional concerns around the lack of strong metrics and evaluation. Over time, more clarity is needed around measures of success and systems to measure and evaluate impact of all programs.
WMUK 919,868 536,336**
  • WMUK is a strong mature organization with a track record of successful programming.
  • While there have been concerns around accounting practices in the past, these practices are improving over time.
  • The FDC is pleased with the quality of the annual plan and detailed budget, which contain the detail necessary for the FDC to understand what the entity is trying to accomplish and how.
  • At the same time, the FDC has concerns around the size of the request / proposed budget, which does not appear to be universally aligned with the activities proposed (e.g. GLAM is a significant part of the plan but there are no staff resources allocated to this).
  • In addition, there are significant concerns around the current governance challenges within the organization and board. There is a plan in place to mitigate and improve some issues, and there is an external review in process. The FDC is confident that the chapter will respond effectively and positively to this, but would like to suggest focusing on this process first, and continuing the organic development without a simultaneous major budget growth, since it could jeopardize the organizational change efforts.

* One FDC member opposed this allocation.
** One FDC member did not participate in the discussion or decision-making related to this allocation due to a conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements[edit]

We thank the FDC staff members, Anasuya Sengupta, Meera Chary, and Winifred Olliff, and Garfield Byrd (WMF Chief of Finance and Administration) for the excellent work they did in preparing and supporting the FDC. In addition, Sue Gardner, Gayle Young, Geoff Brigham and several others dedicated time to this process, and we appreciate them for their support. In particular, Gayle facilitated a session on team dynamics that was very useful. We thank Jan-Bart de Vreede, one of the WMF board representatives to the FDC, for observing FDC deliberations, and for providing clarifications and aiding the FDC in its deliberations when called upon to do so. We also had the opportunity to interact with a number of WMF board members and understand their expectations first-hand, and we thank them as well. We thank all the entities who participated in Round 1 and responded patiently to requests for clarifications on Meta and by email at short notice. We also thank the community for actively participating in the discussion on Meta, which complemented the work of FDC staff and members.

All of us found the deliberation session to be a stimulating and exhausting experience where we learned to appreciate each others' complementing competencies and work through all proposals. We arrived at the recommendations in a professional manner, thanks to the extensive preparatory work done by all involved. We did our best to assess the proposals and develop recommendations with the goal of furthering the global Wikimedia movement at a sustainable pace of growth.

We recommend that the WMF work with the chapters as appropriate, including to better prepare proposals for future funding. We are confident that entities which were not given their full funding request will certainly be able to improve their performance over the next year and will be able to grow their organisations to a higher maturity level to handle future growth in a sustainable manner.

Comments from the deliberation[edit]

Overview of the FDC allocations[edit]

The overall funds available for movement entities for 2012-13 is 11.2 million USD, of which 60,000 USD has been assigned by the WMF Board to the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) outside of the FDC process. The FDC is therefore responsible for recommending allocations for the remaining 11.14 million USD. The FDC has a separate operating budget of 276,000 USD, which includes FDC meeting expenses and salaries of FDC staff. The FDC received proposals from 12 movement entities for Round 1 for a total requested amount of 10.4 million USD, from 11 Wikimedia chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. Three proposals were received after the deadline of 1 October had passed, but the FDC decided that since it was the first time for the process, the late proposals would be accepted and discussed.

Overall, the FDC is recommending an allocation in this round of 8.51 million USD. All seven FDC members approved the full set of recommendations to the Board, with one member stating an opposition to the recommendation for one entity (WMF), and two members abstaining from a single chapter's deliberation, in each case due to conflicts of interest.

The work process[edit]

We were well supported by the FDC staff and their prepared material. WMF staff responsible for compliance issues presented an overview of the compliance history of the entities involved. The FDC members had also read the material beforehand, where available. In general (but not always) we followed the following steps when deliberating each entity's proposal:

  • The staff presented their staff assessment.
  • Garfield presented his financial / compliance perspective.
  • The FDC discussed where the entity was in its lifecycle / maturity cycle.
  • The FDC discussed strengths of the entity's proposed plan, its alignment to the Wikimedia movement strategy, its strengths in innovation and ability to share learnings with other chapters, and other factors.
  • The FDC discussed the entity's ability to execute on the proposed annual plan, with particular attention to increases in staffing and programmatic activities.
  • The FDC discussed the potential allocation for each entity, starting with each member stating a recommended allocation. If there was little disagreement amongst members, we came to an agreement quickly. However, if there was significant disagreement, the FDC paused and continued detailed discussion and debate. The conclusions of these debates often involved compromise, where at times not all members were in complete agreement with the ultimately recommended amount. However, in the end all members stated that they "could live with" the final allocation amount for nearly all entities. In the one case where this did not occur, we have noted this above (one FDC member opposed the allocation amount).

The WCA and the role of the FDC[edit]

While the FDC process is for general funds supporting the annual plans of movement entities, there was one aspect of the proposals that the FDC discussed in some detail: membership fees to the Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA). The FDC supports the creation of the WCA, and hopes that it will in turn be able to support the growth and development of chapters across the world. However, since the WCA is not yet a legally incorporated entity, and may apply for FDC funding for start-up staffing and other expenses, we believe it is premature to include WCA membership fees in allocation requests to the FDC. Therefore, where applicable, the FDC has subtracted WCA membership fees – estimated with clarifications from the chapters – from the requested FDC allocation. However, we also believe in the autonomy of the chapters to continue to put aside funding for the WCA as they deem fit, and each chapter is free to fund the WCA from other sources if they should wish to do so.
Note: One FDC member did not participate in the discussion or decision-making related to the WCA due to a conflict of interest.

Key Themes/Issues of the FDC discussions[edit]

During these deliberations, a few key themes and issues emerged, that we hope to continue to engage with and learn from, as the FDC and together with the rest of the movement.

Overall movement related issues[edit]

  • Organisational size, life cycles and maturity
Entities in this round were of a wide variety of different sizes (whether in terms of budget and/or staffing), and it was clear that different considerations were needed to think about relatively small entities (with no/part time staff moving to fully staffed; budgets up to 150,000 USD), vs. medium-sized entities (with some staff; budgets up to 1 million USD) and large entities (with significant staff; budgets beyond 1 million USD). The FDC and others in the movement need to explore in greater depth the kind of growth trajectories that are suitable for these differently sized organisations, and what kinds of models of staff/volunteer organisations are most appropriate for high-impact work in our movement.
  • Organisations in crisis or transition
Some entities in this round were in situations of transition or crisis, mainly for internal leadership or governance reasons. The FDC hopes that entities will improve at pro-actively reporting these issues, and engaging with the wider movement in order to get the support they need.
  • Leadership and governance issues
The key driver for organisational and programmatic effectiveness currently seems to be strategic leadership and good governance practices, whether for staffed organisations or primarily volunteer-run entities. The movement needs to learn from the different models of leadership and governance, and share both successes and challenges.
  • Understanding impact, outcomes and 'innovation', including how to measure, evaluate and learn
There is an urgent need for a movement-wide discussion on 'impact' and 'innovation', and what appropriate metrics, benchmarks and learning systems for these might be. Most proposals offered process or output indicators for their initiatives and activities (for e.g., how many meet-ups), without offering commensurate outcome or impact indicators (what the expected conversion rate of participants to active editors might be). However, simply offering these indicators is not enough; the questions are what will truly lead to a significant improvement in our overall community health, our infrastructure and increased/improved online access and content? In addition, what innovative strategies and programs are being developed that others can adapt, adopt or learn from?
  • Chapters' role in growing the community: editor recruitment and membership development
There is arguably more discussion needed within the movement on the chapters' role in growing the community, and the impact of chapters on editor recruitment and membership development in the different languages and communities that they serve.
  • Ensuring diversity in our communities, including women
The FDC was pleased to see some proposals explicitly engage with increasing the diversity of the communities they serve, including programs to recruit more women editors.

FDC process issues[edit]

  • Whether to evaluate the full annual plan or just the portion funded by the FDC
Some entities only asked for funding for a portion of their annual plan. In this situation, there was an open question as to whether the FDC should be evaluating the full annual plan or just the portion of the annual plan that the entity has identified as being funded by requested FDC funds. Since the FDC gives general funds, it was considered important to have the holistic picture of the annual plan of the entity, but in the future it may be worthwhile to have an additional section that offers more detail on the FDC request (if appropriate).
The framework outlined guidelines which presented "minimum" and "maximum" funding boundaries for applying entities. The FDC found these guidelines difficult to interpret and of limited use compared with many other factors (including size / maturity of the entity, etc). However, the FDC believes that it is important to have clarity on appropriate growth rates for organisations, since some projected rates seemed unfeasible and unsustainable. Such guidelines may be modified and used more appropriately in future rounds.
  • How to manage complex organizational issues / crises
A few entities experienced challenging situations which surfaced questions about their ability to execute on annual plans. Going forward, it might be helpful to think about how best to support the entities to resolve these situations (both with respect to FDC funding and otherwise).
  • How and when to use bridge funding
Related to the point above, when entities are experiencing situations that might prevent effective spending of movement resources, the FDC felt bridge funding would be appropriate. Going forward, it might be helpful to have a precedent / protocol for this, particularly in terms of how or whether these entities would be able to apply for additional funds in the same year, either via the Wikimedia Grants Program or through subsequent rounds of the FDC. However, the FDC continues to see this as a solution only in exceptional cases.
  • How to think about continuous improvement of the FDC process
Over time, the goal is greater alignment of FDC proposals/annual plans with high impact strategic goals. There are still open questions as to how the FDC can contribute to this improved alignment through the funds dissemination process.

About the FDC[edit]

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) for the Wikimedia movement is a committee of community members that makes recommendations to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) about how to allocate funds to eligible entities within the movement. The FDC was established through a resolution of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, and currently comprises seven members, who were selected by the WMF Board on 15 September 2012:

The two WMF Board representatives on the FDC are Jan-Bart de Vreede and Patricio Lorente, while the Ombudsperson for the current FDC process is Susana Morais. The FDC will expand to nine members from next year (2013), with two more members added through community elections.

For 2012-13, the FDC has been tasked with the responsibility for recommending allocations of movement funds for entities with proposals in two rounds: Round 1 (with a proposal deadline of 1 October 2012, FDC recommendations deadline of 15 November 2012 and Board decision on 15 December 2012); and Round 2 (with a proposal deadline of 1 March 2013, FDC recommendations deadline of 15 April 2013 and Board decision on 15 May 2013). The proposals for Round 1, community responses and staff proposal assessments, as well as other information on the FDC, are available on the FDC portal. Please also see the Frequently Asked Questions page for more details on the history and process of the FDC. [[Category: FDC Template:FDC recommendations/2012-2013 round1]]