Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee/Members/2012-2013 round1/Comments

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Feedback on the overall process[edit]

  • Our community members raised the following concern (and we are aware that this has been discussed also before): all the proposals are available only in English which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to read and comment on them accurately if you don't speak English or speak it poorly. This is a major problem if you want to enable a broad community participation during the process. Although we have offered a translation service for comments during the public comment phase to our members, we cannot translate all 13 proposals into German in such a short period of time (most of the proposal have been posted on the last days before the deadline and the public comment phase starts directly after). Also the financial aspect of such translation would have to be considered.
  • Further, our community members pointed out that 2 weeks period is to short to read, understand and give a reasonable comment on all 13 proposals, especially if they are not in one's native language. --Kasia Odrozek (WMDE) (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    This is a very valid comment. I wonder though, how could this be practically addressed without entailing huge costs? Crowdsourcing the translations to the community can work only to some limits. Clearly, even just giving more time would help, right? Pundit (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    Lost battle. The whole point of the FDC is San Francisco caput mundi. --Nemo 10:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

reassuring my understanding of this subject.[edit]

I use Wikipedia for my children's school work and for my own personal use. I things it is excellent, and if they are meaning that Wiki will get funding to keep it going I am for that 100%. If I am wrong, or unclear to the issue at hand, please explain it or maybe guide me to the right site. I definitely think 10 million US dollars WILL benefit the Wikimedia movement.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Italyn72 (talk)

Thanks for your supporting words. We will do our best in using the money to help fullfill our mission and strategic goals.Anders Wennersten (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about donors, donations and allocations[edit]

Regarding FDC portal/2012/FDC members [1] the question was posed at Talk:FDC portal/2012/FDC members#Question about donors, donations and allocations:

Hi, could someone please clarify where the bulk of the $10 million to be distributed comes from? Presumably it's mostly from donors in the United States. How many donors really donate/d from Poland or India or Bangladesh? If so, why is there only one board member from the USA who will help make decisions about the allocations? The national origins of the board members should at least roughly reflect where the largest proportions of donations to this fund are coming from. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The 10 MUSD is a sum allocated by The Board to be distributed according to recommendations from FDC. So the money comes from the total donations to WMF, where no special part of the donations have been dedicated for this purpose. The Board have been explicit that donations should be used for optimal impact to fullfill our mission and strategic goals and be distributeed independent of the source of the donations. FDC recommends funds allocation mainly to chapters and here competence in chapters businees, good chapter practices and difference of chapters working conditions in different parts of the world are key competences needed in the FDC comittee. FDC manily evaluates relevance and validity of propsals, to find to what part we recommend funding, we are not discussing distribution outside these propsals. Anders Wennersten (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommendations responsibility[edit]

See there. --Nemo 10:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Audit committee[edit]

See Talk:WMF Audit Committee for an overlap with the FDC responsibilities. --Nemo 10:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment pages[edit]

Is this a comment, a complaint or an appeal? No idea, but someone please answer. --Nemo 11:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered at the link. This page is intended to comments directed to the committee regarding proposals, issues with the FDC pages can all be brought up at the pages linked from FDC portal/Questions for FDC staff. heather walls (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear how to distinguish between the various types of comments. Many pieces of feedback include a bit of everything: A question about the process or metrics, an appeal of part of the process that seems unfair, a comment to committee members, and a followup about a specific FDC recommendation. All we need is a single place for all FDC discussion; we can sort it just as we do with any village pump. As long as the comments are few in number, I suggest combining all of the above into a single visual page: with each type of comment in a different top-level section. SJ talk  12:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

canales de televisión (tv channels)[edit]

Sobre los artículos en español y viceversa sobre series y canales de televisión existe pocos o en algunos casos información insuficiente en la investigación de ellas en especial sobre algunas series de inicios de los años sesenta por ejemplo a Mr ED,lo mismo pasa con los algunos canales en latino américa,lo único que sugiero es considerar usar una parte de eso (dinero) en mejorar los artículos sobre televisión o añadirle mas datos sobre ellos. gracias -- 09:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

English Translation: Regarding the articles in Spanish and vice versa on television series and there few or in some cases insufficient information in the investigation of them especially on some series of the early sixties by Mr ED example, the same goes with some channels in Latin America, the only thing I suggest is to consider using a portion of that (money) to improve the articles on television or add more information about them. thanks - ~ ~ ~ ~