Jump to content

Grants:APG/FDC recommendations/2013-2014 round1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) met in San Francisco over the period November 17-21, 2013 in order to assess the proposals for 2013-2014 Round 1 and provide recommendations on them to the WMF Board. The FDC recommendations for each entity are given below. Additionally, we provide some comments on general themes that we noticed throughout the round.


The recommendation is in requested currencies; the amount in US dollars is for comparative purposes only (using recalculated conversion rates from 1 October 2013).

Entity Amount requested Amount recommended
Wikimedia Argentina (Proposal) 0196451$196,451.36 0175000$175,000
Amical Wikimedia (Proposal) 0134608€99,650 ($134,608) 0100000€74,000 ($100,000)
Wikimedia CH * (Proposal) 0552400SFr.500,000 ($552,400) 0400000SFr.362,000 ($400,000)
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. * (Proposal) 2431458€1,800,000 ($2,431,458) 1750000€1,296,000 ($1,750,000)
Wikimedia India * (Proposal) 0176214₹11,054,802 ($176,214) 0053000₹3,325,000 ($53,000)
Wikimedia Israel (Proposal) 0438306₪1,553,837 ($438,306) 0200000₪709,000 ($200,000)
Wikimedia Nederland (Proposal) 0436312€323,000 ($436,312) 0410000€304,000 ($410,000)
Wikimedia Serbia (Proposal) 0119335€88,342.88 ($119,335) 0108000€80,000 ($108,000)
Wikimedia Sverige * (Proposal) 0435596SEK2,800,000 ($435,596) 0390000SEK2,507,000 ($390,000)
Wikimedia Österreich (Proposal) 0310686€230,000 ($310,686) 0276000€204,000 ($276,000)
Wikimedia UK * (Proposal) 0714746£442,217 ($714,746) 0570000£353,000 ($570,000)
R1 Total $5,946,112 $4,432,000

* A member of the FDC recused themselves from the discussion or decision-making related to this allocation due to a perceived or actual conflict of interest, namely: Cristian Consonni (WMCH), Delphine Ménard (WMDE), Arjuna Rao Chavala (WMIN), Anders Wennersten (WMSE), and Mike Peel (WMUK). Additionally, Anasuya Sengupta voluntarily withdrew from the discussion of WMIN’s proposal.

The overall funds available for movement entities through the FDC process in 2013-2014 is $6,000,000, some of which will be recommended to be allocated during Round 2 of this year. This round, $4,432,000 has been allocated, leaving $1,568,000 for Round 2. The Letters of Intent estimating the requested amounts for Round 2 total $1,400,000.

Wikimedia Argentina[edit]

Amount requested: $196,451.36
Amount allocated: $175,000

  • WMAR’s focus on diversity and the global south is in line with movement strategies, and WMAR is taking a structured approach to regional collaboration. It is good to see that WMAR is in the process of developing a strategic plan.
  • We would like to see more innovative initiatives from WMAR.
  • While WMAR’s metrics are aligned with outcomes on Wikimedia projects, the plan is not clear and lacks targets, especially considering the large amount requested. SMART goals are used inconsistently across the proposal and tracking impact is difficult. The rapid growth proposed needs to be better justified.
  • WMAR is almost entirely supported through the FDC, although this may be more understandable in the context of its country’s economic situation.
  • Increase in WMAR’s staff may decrease the load on volunteers. However, the staff increase is high with respect to impact and will need time to manage. Additionally, administrative costs are high for an entity of this size.
  • Overall, WMAR’s proposal reflects well thought-out plans and WMAR is well-positioned for impact on a global scale.

Amical Wikimedia[edit]

Amount requested: €99,650 ($134,608)
Amount allocated: €74,000 ($100,000)

  • WMCAT’s proposal reflects a thoughtful process, especially considering that this is WMCAT’s first proposal to the FDC. This plan has a clear focus on content and outcomes on the Wikimedia projects, and builds on past successes.
  • WMCAT’s staff, board and the Catalan community have demonstrated close cooperation; WMCAT is community-driven and community-focused, as evidenced by WMCAT’s process of creating its strategic plan.
  • WMCAT works with a highly passionate and motivated community. The Catalan language community produces a high number of articles per editor.
  • WMCAT has a good programmatic track record; the organization prioritizes programmatic work over institutionalization.
  • Increasing activity may not be a good approach to preventing volunteer burnout.
  • WMCAT has successfully experimented with programs, particularly GLAM. The ideas in this proposal may be adopted and adapted by others in the movement.
  • The FDC appreciates that WMCAT is experimenting with its organizational approach in which administrative work is done by the board, while the staff focuses on programs. The FDC looks forward to learning from the outcomes of this approach.
  • Previously WMCAT had more external funding. Though the FDC believes the growth in FDC resources is justified, we would like to see WMCAT pursue more external funding options, particularly those that are available from organizations that support Catalan initiatives.
  • While WMCAT has a strategic plan, we encourage high-level strategic focus in future iterations of the planning process. We would like to see a stronger connection between goals and the planned activities.
  • Many of WMCAT’s projects focus on enabling socialization among volunteers rather than having direct impact on the projects.
  • The FDC was concerned that the proposed budget increase was too rapid. It was not clear whether full funding was necessary for the work proposed, or if WMCAT currently has the capacity to manage this size of budget or a plan this ambitious, particularly given past underspending (in 2012-13).
  • WMCAT is the first thematic organization to participate in the FDC process, and we are looking forward to seeing more cooperation and collaboration with existing Wikimedia organizations in order for its works to have global impact.

Wikimedia CH[edit]

Amount requested: SFr. 500,000 ($552,400)
Amount allocated: SFr. 362,000 ($400,000)

  • WMCH supports a diverse language community within Switzerland and beyond its borders.
  • WMCH’s proposal contains innovative ideas that are different from the ideas in other proposals, such as Wikipedia in Jail and The Alps.
  • WMCH’s reporting standards are not on par with the size and context of the organization and this is of particular concern for a payment processor receiving large amounts of funds.
  • WMCH’s metrics are insufficient given the organization’s size and context.
  • WMCH’s funds request is too high considering projected impact, especially as fewer than 20 volunteers are engaged with WMCH’s activities.
  • WMCH’s significant planned increase in staff within one year (from 1.8 full time equivalents to 4.7) does not have a clear link to impact. This staffing plan may need to be reconsidered.
  • WMCH’s work is community-driven.
  • WMCH acknowledges past challenges and builds on past successes.
  • WMCH supports movement systems, such as communications systems.

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.[edit]

Amount requested: €1,800,000 ($2,431,458)
Amount allocated: €1,296,000 ($1,750,000)

In the case of WMDE, the FDC has decided to offer a slightly more detailed feedback due to the size of the entity and the amount of funds requested.

WMDE reports structural and process-related problems resulting from fast growth. This is a very good and honest self-reflection, which however immediately suggests slowing down the pace of expansion.

A major problem with the proposal is the underspending from previous years. The reasons for underspending are clear and well-described. However, WMDE does not propose any clear solution to the fact that it has a significant carry-over of $675,000 from its 2013 budget. Briefly stating that it plans to allocate this amount to software development in 2014 is insufficient. The amount proposed is equal to the annual budget of several Wikimedia organizations combined and cannot be treated lightly. Moreover, a practice of underspending against its actual budgets and increasing its proposed budgets from year to year is problematic: it creates a gap between planning and execution, moves guardrails beyond the intended limits, and may result in large amounts of idle cash that could be used for the movement's needs today. However, the FDC has discussed the issue and made the final allocation based on the assumption that the specified underspend will be carried over into WMDE’s 2014 budget rather than WMDE returning any part of this underspend that is from the previous FDC allocation to the WMF.

WMDE’s goals are sophisticated, which is expected because WMDE is a larger organization. However, WMDE does not include sufficient targets. WMDE is a large chapter, and is currently unable to measure its value commensurate with this large amount (equal to 40% of total FDC resources for this year). There are also concerns about WMDE not reaching goals around quality and reach.

The Theory of Change approach used by the WMDE’s Evaluation Unit shows clear commitment to continuous improvement. WMDE recognizes the need for measurable goals, but often chooses to rely on a more general and enigmatic overall outcomes assessment, which is somewhat problematic for an organization this size.[1] The goals for the "Volunteer Support Program" are specific and well-defined. However, the goals for "Institutional Partnerships Program" are rather vague: there are practically no real circumstances under which this program could even potentially be considered a full failure, which also means that it is quite likely that it will not meet its full potential either. (Although measures are proposed, e.g. the number of institutions, no target number is proposed.) It would be possible to create SMART goals for this program (general, but still specific enough) without jeopardizing its essence. Goals for "Social and Legal Framework" are partly defined and would require only minor modifications to be fully SMART.

WMDE has a strategic focus on four priority areas, including software development. Wikidata is a high-potential project that is unlike work any other chapter is doing. However, while there is a large increase in staff in this proposal, the staff increase and much of the budget is not focused on Wikidata, despite Wikidata being identified as a reason for the proposed budget significantly exceeding the guidelines.

This organization has high potential to raise funds from external sources. However, WMDE proposes to increase its funding from the FDC by 31%, while growing external resources by only 3%. The proposed growth of both budget and staff may not be sustainable if funding options become limited. Additionally, the proposed growth in FDC funding is too rapid in the context of underspending. A large amount of money is set aside for some projects, but sometimes WMDE cannot move forward without community support. This also results in unspent funds.

This large requested amount of two million US dollars does not have a clear rationale. WMDE also has large amounts in its reserves and is proposing to carry forward $675,000. Impact of proposed programs may not be commensurate with proposed request of $2.4 million.

WMDE is also supporting movement work like the Chapters Dialogue. WMDE aims to play a major role in the movement and has planned and budgeted to do so. Accountability should be proportionate to size: as an entity of this size and impact, WMDE should develop ways to consult more broadly with the movement at large (beyond chapters and its local community). Additionally, it is good to see that its membership is increasing.

Overall, we have provided a reduced allocation that takes into account past underspending and the feasibility of additional growth in the forthcoming year, resulting in an effective increase of 20% over the previous FDC allocation.

Wikimedia India[edit]

Amount requested: ₹11,054,802 ($176,214)
Amount allocated: ₹3,325,000 ($53,000)

  • The FDC believes that it is important that WMIN’s growth is sustainably supported, as India is a high-potential country. Language communities in India are gaining momentum and have some committed volunteers.
  • The funding requested is high given local context, with an overly ambitious plan. The recommended amount of funding may be a better match for WMIN’s current capacity than the amount requested.
  • We recognize WMIN’s success in Open Educational Resources (OER) work.
  • The proposed growth is too rapid, and would present a significant risk to WMIN’s successful implementation of its plan.
  • Clear rationale for goals is not always provided in WMIN’s proposal, and programs do not have adequate measures.
  • The activities proposed may not lead to impact commensurate with costs. For example, a focus on conferences and other events may not yield high impact.
  • Too large a portion of WMIN’s proposed budget is allocated to operational costs, which may not result in direct impact on the Wikimedia projects. Furthermore, some budget line items do not appear consistent or realistic.
  • Governance/organization challenges could impact decision-making and execution of WMIN’s plan.
  • The enthusiasm of WMIN’s board is impressive, and board members may need opportunities to travel in order to exchange ideas with the broader movement.

Wikimedia Israel[edit]

Amount requested: ₪1,553,837 ($438,306)
Amount allocated: ₪709,000 ($200,000)

  • WMIL has executed impressive programs in the past, and has not overly focused on institutionalization. Examples of successful past programs are Wikimania 2011, media coverage of the 10th anniversary and Wiki Air. The change in national copyright law is a significant achievement for WMIL, and WMIL has had success with partnerships.
  • The editing community WMIL supports is increasing. WMIL has strong commitment from its volunteers.
  • WMIL a high potential for (global) impact. However, the quality of the proposal is concerning; it may not show WMIL’s full potential or highlight past achievements.
  • WMIL has been open about recent hiring challenges.
  • WMIL has demonstrated visible improvements in reporting and sharing lessons with the movement.
  • The depth of WMIL’s strategic planning is not commensurate with the size of this request. For example, goals and metrics are not clear or measurable.
  • The proposed growth in both budget and staffing is too rapid.
  • WMIL’s proposed plan is not feasible, with too many activities for an organization in transition.
  • The pace of WMIL’s staff growth does not seem rational or proportionate. WMIL changed its staffing plan unexpectedly and did not inform FDC. Furthermore, the current and proposed staffing plan is ill-considered.
  • WMIL is a creative organization that has spread ideas through the movement and has potential to achieve (global) impact. We look forward to WMIL’s continued innovations.

Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

Amount requested: €323,000 ($436,312)
Amount allocated: €304,000 ($410,000)

  • WMNL has strong programs and solid administration.
  • WMNL has a thoughtful planning process that includes pilots, an assessment of community needs and community surveys.
  • WMNL is collaborative, open to cooperation with other entities and supports other entities globally. In addition, WMNL has improved in its willingness to reflect and share.
  • WMNL benefits from strong community involvement, and steady and effective leadership. However, it currently relies on a small group of active volunteers.
  • The proposed growth is rapid, and the amount requested is high in proportion to impact on Wikimedia projects. More than 50% of WMNL’s budget is dedicated to administration and travel.
  • Some of WMNL’s fundraising goals, like those involving the retention of existing donors, do not seem realistic. WMNL may be projecting external growth beyond what is possible.
  • We commend WMNL for its focus and its practical strategic plan with time-bound goals and actions.

Wikimedia Serbia[edit]

Amount requested: €88,342.88 ($119,335)
Amount allocated: €80,000 ($108,000)

  • WMRS is a small organization that is expanding its staff, and so a significant funding increase is reasonable at this time.
  • WMRS is growing beyond $100,000, which represents an organizational shift toward professionalization that brings new challenges and opportunities.
  • WMRS has innovative programs, and the budget is weighted towards programs. However, the number of programs presents concerns around feasibility of implementing them.
  • WMRS’ plan is not cohesive in terms of strategy or program groupings.
  • WMRS is in the early stages of positioning itself as a regional collaborator, although impact is still on a small scale.
  • WMRS’ work is volunteer-led, and volunteer and staff commitment is strong, although the exact division of volunteer and staff labour is not entirely clear.

Wikimedia Sverige[edit]

Amount requested: SEK2,800,000 ($435,596)
Amount allocated: SEK2,507,000 ($390,000)

  • WMSE has a history of delivering on programs, testing innovative programs and building on past successes. WMSE both plans new projects and adapts projects from other Wikimedia organizations. However, the proposed plan is not maximizing impact by combining activities and approaches effectively.
  • In this well-written proposal, WMSE has formulated goals that set a baseline for assessing performance; however the goals could be improved to be more specific, and existing targets are conservative, while plans for attracting external funding may be overly optimistic.
  • This funding requested is not commensurate with impact. Although WMSE’s program work seems stable, it is not clear why an increase in funding at that level is justified.
  • The potential for WMSE’s global impact may be somewhat limited to Swedish context.
  • WMSE’s programs have strong strategic alignment with movement priorities, and WMSE has a good track record with reporting, learning and sharing.

Wikimedia Österreich[edit]

Amount requested: €230,000 ($310,686)
Amount allocated: €204,000 ($276,000)

  • WMAT is moving toward a focused and thoughtful approach to its initiatives, which may lead to impact and creativity not fully evident in this proposal. WMAT is building on past work, and has clear focus on a limited number of programs.
  • WMAT’s planned modest increase in staff levels may positively impact increased programmatic activity. WMAT has an adaptable and flexible approach around building joint volunteer-staff leadership.
  • Questions remain around the degree of impact of WMAT’s work on the Wikimedia projects, given the amount of funds requested.
  • WMAT’s reasons for growth are unclear, although year-to-year comparisons are difficult given lack of baseline metrics from the current year and poor metrics in this proposal. These standards of planning are not commensurate with the amount requested. WMAT should have higher standards with this large budget.
  • WMAT has reached a level of professionalization that is positive, and has a stable, committed and effective board and staff. The chapter is alert and responsive to its context.

Wikimedia UK[edit]

Amount requested: £442,217 ($714,746)
Amount allocated: £353,000 ($570,000)

  • The stabilization of growth of WMUK’s staff is a good sign, although there are concerns about the number of staff devoted to administration (three full time administrative staff).
  • Governance issues are being addressed.
  • WMUK’s programs are not focused enough, and WMUK has not fully defined its goals and metrics or provided sufficient justification for what it wants to achieve, especially in the context of its size and ability to influence.
  • The proposed growth is too rapid and the amount requested is large.
  • Despite last year's FDC recommendation, WMUK has pursued a path of rapid and potentially unsustainable growth in the current year, making long-term commitments; furthermore, it is increasing its reliance on FDC funds in the proposed year.
  • WMUK’s projected impact on Wikimedia projects is too low in proportion to funds requested.
  • WMUK has a lot of potential for impact on Wikimedia projects; for example, through partnering with GLAM institutions, and demonstrated by success in implementing the Wikipedians in Residence program and EduWiki conferences.

The FDC deliberations process[edit]

Prior to the deliberations, the FDC reviewed the proposals for a period of one month, aided by staff assessments and analysis on programs, finances, grant compliance and history, as well as community comments on the proposals. Staff presented an overview of these findings to the FDC during the deliberations. The FDC and FDC staff also asked clarifying questions to the entities on the proposal form discussion pages during the four-week community review period (and prior to the publishing of staff assessments), and observed the discussions about the proposals.

The FDC used the following model to deliberate on each entity's proposal:

  • Before the face-to-face meeting took place, the FDC identified high-level strengths and concerns of the proposal, met virtually to discuss these, and requested additional input from FDC staff where needed.
  • Each FDC member submitted their initial funding recommendations before the face-to-face meeting. These numbers were presented at the start of the deliberation on each proposal.
  • The FDC staff presented their staff assessments for each proposal, which were posted on Meta before the face-to-face meeting.
  • Garfield Byrd (WMF Chief Financial Officer) presented his financial overview for each proposal.
  • The FDC discussed the strengths and concerns of each entity's plan, including its proposed programs. The FDC reviewed the history and context of the entity as well.
  • The FDC then discussed the potential funds allocation for each entity, starting with conversation about members’ individual recommendations. There was significant conversation and debate about each proposal. FDC members then re-evaluated their recommended allocations until consensus was achieved. Successive reviews of proposals were held where the review did not reach a consensus on the funding amount.

Members that had a conflict of interest with a proposal were recused from the relevant deliberations.

The first session of the FDC meeting included updates from Sue Gardner (WMF Executive Director) and a discussion on conflict of interest with Stephen LaPorte (WMF Legal Counsel). Later that day, Frank Schulenburg (WMF Senior Director of Programs) and Asaf Bartov (WMF Head of Project and Event Grants) presented assessments of the proposals from the programmatic and grants history and compliance angles.

The deliberations took place in the Yongle conference room at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco, USA. In order to manage the confidentiality of the process, the FDC set out the following ground rules for the meeting, which were sent around to WMF staff prior to the deliberations:

  1. FDC meeting participants should not talk with WMF staff who are not taking part in the meeting about the applications under consideration or the FDC process as a whole while the deliberations are taking place.
  2. The outcomes of the deliberations should not be shared with WMF staff or others that are not taking part in the meeting before they're publicly announced.
  3. WMF employees are not to attend the meetings unless invited in to support the FDC
  4. Non-participating people, service staff, etc. are not to be allowed into the meeting facilities while the deliberations or discussions are taking place.
  5. These ground rules will also apply to any Wikimedia organization who hosts an FDC meeting. The host organization should not have its proposal under consideration during that particular round of deliberations.

Comments from the deliberation[edit]

Strategy, goal-setting, and measures[edit]

We appreciate that some entities have put increased efforts into goal-setting in this round. Precise goal-setting is essential for successful strategy development and implementation. Avoiding SMART goals, or only partially adapting these principles and replacing them with longer narratives, results in strategies that are difficult to implement and evaluate, including by the organizations following them. The FDC recognizes the fact that for some objectives defining SMART goals may be difficult, and that sometimes in an overall evaluation qualitative outcomes should be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that SMART goals should be avoided. Rather, it indicates that they can and often should be supplemented by a more comprehensive approach. It should be also noted that the very process of formulating SMART goals is a very valuable exercise, enabling organizations to understand its projects and better.

In addition, entities can improve their abilities to define and set their own metrics (including target numbers) and track them over time. Measures and metrics can be focused both on outputs (e.g. number of participants, number of partners) as well as outcomes and impact (e.g. quality and usage of content, editor retention). It is also important to make sure that the most appropriate outcomes for the projects are being sought and measured (for instance, whether a particular event will best target existing editors or new editors). We would like to see the targets of the goals set at a level that will substantially impact the Wikimedia projects.

FDC:BOLD - The need for creative and novel initiatives[edit]

Although many proposals were solid, as a whole the portfolio was not striking and there were few entities experimenting with creative or unusual initiatives. We encourage Wikimedia organizations to be bold and come up with new ideas for activities, particularly where they are likely to scale and be adopted by other entities. This is especially important where entities are seeking to grow their budgets by increasing their funds allocations beyond the allocation guidelines.

Collaboration among entities[edit]

The FDC would like to commend and encourage the collaborative approach some entities are taking by working within their region or local languages with other Wikimedia organizations. We believe that seeking complementarity and synergy in programmatic activities may maximize impact. Collaboration projects have the potential to establish best practices, and avoid redundancy in programmatic activities targeting the same groups.

Planning and budgeting[edit]

Good planning and budgeting is a difficult exercise that requires an iterative process. Many organizations have revised their budgets down in the past year as they were not as successful in raising external funding as planned. Many entities anticipate underspending in their current FDC allocations. The FDC appreciates that organizations are spending prudently. However, constant underspending may point to challenges in planning and budgeting.

Reliance on the FDC for funding[edit]

Following the Board’s directive, the FDC recommended in 2012-2013 Round 2 that Wikimedia entities able to diversify their funding options should intensify their efforts in this respect and seek resources outside of the movement where possible. The seeking of such support should be in line with the mission and movement's goals. Additional resources and in-kind support from donors (such as individuals, governments, organizations or corporations), could help the whole movement in targeting its resources towards initiatives with fewer support possibilities, and could increase the overall sustainability of the movement.


The FDC has identified the issue of operating reserves as an area that needs further consideration. In the near future, we will offer the movement some guidance in consultation with the stakeholders, including the entities, WMF board and FDC staff.

Staff/volunteer issues[edit]

Volunteer burnout is a critical challenge that has been identified by many organizations in their proposals. Staffing is often the proposed solution, however it should be kept in mind that recruitment and onboarding can also take considerable resources from volunteer Boards.

Similarly, an increase in program activity may attract new volunteers or motivate existing volunteers, but an increase in program activity may also worsen burnout and the danger of increased burnout may simultaneously lead to challenges in the execution of an ambitious activity plan.

There is no one solution to this complex issue, and each organization may need to approach it in a way that balances volunteer and staff roles appropriate to its context. Some functions, like payroll for instance, can be outsourced to external agencies, leaving staff to focus on supporting volunteers with programs.

Recruitment, COI procedures and internal policies[edit]

We are concerned about the lack of strong recruitment processes in all Wikimedia organizations. As organizations are growing staff, internal procedures around hiring may need to be strengthened, especially when organizations are considering hiring people that are currently volunteering with them. The FDC would like to emphasize the importance of conflicts of interest policies, professional staff recruitment, and community ethics standards. [2].

The FDC’s 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 (organizational 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 learnings from across different entities and the regions, languages and communities they support will be effectively shared with the global Wikimedia movement.

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 nine members, seven of whom were selected by the WMF Board in September 2012 and two of whom were elected in June 2013:

The two WMF Board representatives on the FDC are Patricio Lorente and Bishakha Datta, while the Ombudsperson for the current FDC process is Susana Morais.

For 2013-2014, 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 2013, FDC recommendations deadline of 1 December 2013 and Board decision deadline on 1 January 2014); and Round 2 (with a proposal deadline of 1 March 2014, FDC recommendations deadline of 1 May 2014 and Board decision deadline on 1 June 2014). 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. More information on future rounds, including deadlines for the Letters of Intent and proposals, can be found on the FDC process timeline on the FDC portal.

The FDC was supported by WMF staff throughout the deliberations. These staff included: Garfield Byrd, Katy Love, Winifred Olliff, Anasuya Sengupta and Jessie Wild, who supported the FDC throughout the meeting. Additionally, Asaf Bartov, Sue Gardner, Stephen LaPorte and Frank Schulenburg were present for specific discussions on the first day. Adele Vrana managed the logistics for the meeting. WMF staff who were present throughout the deliberations do not take part in the discussions around proposals; they offered analysis, helped facilitate, took notes and responded to any additional queries by the FDC.


  1. While it is true that for many tasks it is difficult to choose SMART goals, and that for many initiatives a qualitative and complex approach gives a better picture, it does not mean that SMART goals should be abandoned. In fact, monitoring SMART goals is essential in successful implementation of strategy. It should be emphasized, that the purpose of SMART goals is not necessarily to determine whether a program was a success or a failure, since not meeting these goals just requires referring to the qualitative outputs in a justification of the results. SMART goals should not be skipped a priori.
  2. FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Good_governance_and_effective_leadership