Global Resource Distribution Committee/Creation of the interim GRDC/Candidates/Lajmmoore
 | To leave feedback about this candidate, please use the talk page. |
| Preferred name | Lucy Moore | |
|---|---|---|
| Language capabilities (native or professional / advanced / basic) | English (fluent), German (basic) | |
| Region and country you identify with | North-west Europe | |
| Interim GRDC seats you are running for and why (regional volunteer/thematic volunteer) | Thematic (1st), NWE (2nd) | |
| Do you have any topic or area of specialization within the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters) | Women and gender; GLAM. | |
| Have you ever held any role or position, either current or past, in the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters) | I was a member of the NW Europe regional funds committee from 2021 to 2023. I am member of Wikimedia UK's Community Development Committee. | |
| Why are you interested in the interim GRDC and what can you contribute? (max 1000 characters) | I am interested in the interim GRDC, as I am passionate about how funding programmes within the Wikimedia movement can evolve to support its sustainability and to reflect the changing needs of its communities. I resigned from the NWE committee as I felt the process was no longer reflecting our values. This does not mean I don't believe in the future of resource development and I would love to be involved with the GRDC pilot to use my experiences as an editor, advocate, a woman, a carer and a heritage practitioner to test new ways working for the movement. | |
| Please share any volunteering or professional experience relevant for the interim GRDC (role, organization, years) (max 1000 characters) | 1. In terms of Wikimedia experience, I have been editing with Women in Red since 2019, and in 2024 got significant press coverage for the project as I finished writing a biography for a woman from every country in the world. I have a good understanding of the pressures that non-cisgender men face in the movement, and support the LGBT+ User group where I can (most recently with an AIDS-related editathon). I have also worked as a Wikimedian -in-Residence, and work in the heritage sector in the UK. I am a member of the GLAM user group and was present at #GLAMWiki in Uruguay. This is in addition to the committee roles above.
2. Outside Wikimedia, I am a trustee for three charities, all of which are going through resource management re-assessment. All three are also grant-giving organisations. Whilst not at the same scale as the Foundation, experience working with these organisations has given me strong understanding of community consultation as part of fund-raising, messaging around grant-giving, and how to build community investment in grant outcomes. I have fund-raised successfully for heritage projects too. 3. I think perhaps the biggest skill I would bring - and this paraphrases a colleague on another committee - is to "always push others to do better and to think more deeply about decisions". | |
| Describe your skills and experience relevant to the interim GRDC (max 1500 characters) | *Project management and evaluation
| |
| Describe your understanding of the Wikimedia Movement's current resource distribution process. (max 1500 characters) | The Wikimedia Foundation distributes financial resources (as well as their expertise) through a range of unding programmes, the largest of which is the regional fund committees, although there are others, such as rapid grants and the research committees.
For regional funds, affiliates submit applications either annually or for across slightly longer periods, and decisions are taken by the regional committee about how to divide the funding availabe. Issues with the sytem that were important when I was on the committee was that the funding available was not increasing, but more affiliates were applying for funds. More of these applications were also thematic, rather than geographic. In my experience there was sometimes a gap between the application form asking for a vision, but then the regional committee wanting more detail that the affiliate had expected to supply. I hope the GRDC would bridge this. A third level are the funding programmes that some (not all) affiliates use to distribute their resources. There seems to be a lot of difference between how affiliates do this, particualrly large ones, which can seem inequitable to those whose affiliate has no grant-making programme. | |
| How do you think the GRDC could improve the current situation and which priorities do you think it should have? (max 1500 characters) | My understanding is that resource distribution is at a cross-roads, with increasing calls for thematic support that both transcends, and/or is part of existing community organisations. I also understand that there is likely no huge boost to funding. What the GRDC will hope to achieve is finding new ways to cut the cake that balance these growing needs with the work that is going on successful across affiliates globally. Within this, there's also the bigger question not just of what else can be funded, but also what can't and where reductions in resource might create greater equity elsewhere. To do this:
| |
| By the end of the pilot in two years, what should the GRDC have accomplished and how should we measure its success? (max 1500 characters) | From a practical point of view, there are key policies to develop, including principles and a metrics framework. Writing these and having them provisionally adopted by the Board would be one marker success. However, I think key to measuring the wider success or failure of the pilot is feedbck from the wider Wikimedia community. To do this the GRDC needs to keep community members informed about its progress, and importantly enable feedback processes throughout pilot. I think it would be worth considering stages of evaluation throughout the pilot, including some pre-emptive evaluation (if that's not already been done) to measure what actual expectations of the community are.
Whilst this qualitiative understanding is really important, there also needs to be a robust framework based on the principles developed, that states: the communtiy requested this > the outcome was this > with clear justification for action, or indeed inaction. I think there is also another question to be considered - is the GRDC judging its own success, or is it the board, the WMF or the wider community. This really needs to be clairfied before any of the above. | |