Global Resource Distribution Committee/Changes to the GRDC proposal based on the feedback received

These are the changes made to the initial proposal to create an interim Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC). These changes are based on the feedback received through three tracks of feedback gathering (Affiliate EDs, Regional Fund Committees, and general feedback in Wikimedia events and Meta). Follow this link to check the diff of these changes.

Create the interim GRDC by March 2025 with members appointed by the Foundation in collaboration with stakeholders

• Timeline - We are moving the deadline for creating the interim Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC) from January to March 2025,
• Process - The interim GRDC will be formed through appointments based on self-nominations and invitations made in collaboration with the Regional Fund Commitees (RFCs) and the Affiliates, and based on criteria of expertise, skills and diversity. Such skills will be defined in January 2025, to kick off a call of candidates in the first week of February 2025.
• Composition - Inspired by the feedback received and the recent precedent of the Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) proposal, the first GRDC would be formed by 13 members: 8 regional volunteers, 1 thematic volunteer, 2 affiliate stakeholders (who can be affiliate staff), and 2 Wikimedia Foundation stakeholders (board and/or staff).
• Fund allocation - The GRDC will build on the process utilized in FY23-24, where the Foundation worked with RFCs and Affiliate EDs to jointly determine regional allocations for grant portfolios. The interim GRDC will advise the Foundation on how to allocate grants across regional, and if determined, thematic allocations. It will provide  recommendations based on historical trends, movement needs, and needs from the Foundation. The final decision on the total budget allocation for grants to later be allocated in different portfolios will remain with WMF, with the interim GRDC advising and working jointly with the Foundation throughout all the steps of the process.
• Mid-point review: The pilot would have a checkpoint in March 2026 to review this and other open questions, and then a community consultation in March 2027.

Reasoning

• The feedback shows that the original proposal needs an iteration before creating the interim Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC) on January 2025 as initially planned, especially on:
  • The definition of its objectives and the success criteria for the 2-year experiment, based on a clear problem statement and lessons learned from the Funds Dissemination Committee.
  • Improving its selection process, to ensure that the committee has the skills, experience, and diversity of perspectives required to perform its duties.
  • Reconsidering that the GRDC has the responsibility to decide regional budget allocations, at least while the composition and selection of this committee is still undecided and the performance of the pilot unproven. The risks identified are: putting too much pressure on individual volunteers representing their region, falling into direct competition to get more resources for your region, and leaving underrepresented groups in a position of disadvantage next to the well-established players.
• Based on the feedback received in almost all conversations, the proposal to form the interim GRDC with only current or former Regional Fund Committee (RFC) members requires further review.
  • Regional diversity and expertise are not the only factors needed for the GRDC to succeed. Wikimedia’s global priorities are thematic, and that perspective is required too.
  • The GRDC might benefit from skills and expertise not found in the RFCs that current or former affiliate members could provide.
  • Community elections are not perceived as the best tool to bring the skills, experiences, and diversity of perspectives required for the GRDC to succeed.
• Meanwhile, the appointed Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) has received good feedback from the technical community and related stakeholders.
  • Just like the GRDC, the PTAC was proposed by the Board with the same motivation to define practical next steps after the Movement Charter vote. Both bodies have a strategic mandate to improve the collaboration between the Wikimedia communities, affiliates, and Foundation.
  • The PTAC proposal includes a selection process open to volunteers and affiliate & Foundation staff members that prioritizes the skills and diversity of perspectives required by the council, based on predefined seats for different stakeholders and a recruitment process based on appointments which includes volunteer applications.
  • The feedback to the proposal received from the technical community has been positive. The feedback on the GRDC provided by affiliates and grantee stakeholders in general also signals that self-nominations and invitations made in collaboration with the Regional Fund Committees and the Affiliates might be preferred to elections to ensure that the GRDC has the composition it needs to succeed.

Empower the interim GRDC to evolve the Regional Fund Committees

• Timeline - We suggest postponing the implementation of any strategic changes to the Regional Funds Committees until the interim GRDC is created and can own the responsibility to evaluate inut received during the feedback process and decide these changes.
• Composition and set up -The Foundation can support the GRDC providing the feedback obtained from the three tracks of the consultation process (mainly from RFCs) and the lessons learned since these committees were created. This change provides more time to discuss essential points like the selection process for these committees (i.e. appointment and/or election) or whether a thematic committee would be needed as well.
• Connection to the affiliate ecosystem pilot - It also helps align the evolution of RFCs with the planned co-creation of an improved affiliate ecosystem pilot.
• Addressing immediate issues - If there are urgent issues to tackle, the Foundation can address them in the short term as the current entity responsible for these committees.

Reasoning

• The feedback round made clear that discussing the creation of the GRDC and the evolution of the RFCs at the same time is very difficult.
  • Both processes are complex and have many interdependencies. Discussing both at the same time has a risk of increasing confusion among stakeholders (as seen in several conversations of this feedback round) and reducing our capacity to make decisions.
  • According to the proposal, the GRDC will have the authority to adjust current grantmaking structures, and therefore it would make sense that it is responsible for the evolution of the current RFCs. If we run both processes at the same time, then the Foundation is the de facto decision-maker of this evolution of the RFCs.
  • The RFCs do time-sensitive work evaluating grant proposals, and they are already stretched. Pushing the GRDC and RFCs discussions at the same time under a tight deadline has a high risk of affecting their critical work.
• There were many questions about the proposed changes to the RFCs, and a sense that more time is needed to discuss and agree on good solutions. These were recurrent topics:
  • What are the current problems that have been identified in the RFCs? There was an overall sense that these problems had to be documented to have a good discussion about them.
  • Are community elections the best or only option to form RFCs with the skills and experience required to succeed?
  • What about the participation of affiliates? They are the beneficiaries of the Community Fund and they have first-hand experience with the RFCs and the grants processes.