Jump to content

Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee/Ombudsperson annual report - 2012-2013

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Annual Report 2012-2013


In this annual report I summarize feedback and recommendations received during 2012-13 concerning the FDC. The feedback is divided into topics so that it is more perceptible. The feedback was gathered from several places, from the appeals pages, discussion pages from the FDC portal, surveys, and e-mails directed to me. The publication of this information serves to create a better FDC, showing potencial flaws and aspects needing improvement. As these are opinions, the same aspect can have both positive and negative feedback.

Please continue to share your feedback, thoughts, and suggestions: FDC portal/Comments. Lusitana (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

FDC process - feedback[edit]


  • Generally satisfactory and fair, transparent, and not overly time-consuming (average c. 70h for applying entity).
  • Helps achieve greater clarity around annual plan and goals.
  • Helps achieve impact and use funds in the most efficient way.
  • Is not inhibiting the ability to reach the goals, though there are areas to be improved. But it brings benefits for the applying entities, specially in achieving goals such as participation and infrastructure.


  • Time consuming and complicated.
  • There may be ways to tighten the requirements and lay out the expectations. Expectations of the FDC may not be clear to all entities (clarify terminology). Expectations at the beginning of the process are less well-defined.
  • FDC staff overlapping the FDC committee's work by not limiting analysis to numbers and facts (evaluating aspects like strategic alignment).
  • May be imposing the same model of organization to all chapters (entities applying) by using a single model of evaluation.
  • The number of active members, volunteers and staff in a chapter cannot clearly indicate if they are enough to succeed in a specific activity.
  • The FDC application process occurs early in the planning process, which makes it difficult to include detailed project plans.

FDC portal - feedback (ease of navigability, user-friendliness)[edit]

Note: Some changes to the portal have been made and are still being made.


  • Commnents on individual proposals.


  • Not user friendly.
  • Confusing comment pages (too many).

FDC forms - feedback[edit]


  • Good to make comparisons between proposals. Comparing proposals is critical for the FDC, especially as the volume of proposals and amounts of funds requested increases.
  • It helps entities setting goals.


  • The form does not help entities structure their annual plans.
  • Wikimarkup is not the best way to present a proposal.


  • A spreadsheet (CSV) or a gdoc would be more efficient, since time is not spent worrying about the table collapsing.

Interaction with the FDC - feedback[edit]


  • Friendly and efficient despite the time differences.


  • No enought communication between FDC/staff and applying entities.
  • More contact needed especially after the results are published.
  • Staff assessment too vague and demotivating.


  • Maybe some FDC member could be contacted to clarify any doubts about the result (What was wrong? What can be improved? etc).
  • More details needed in the results so that the entity can improve it's plans in the future.

Community involvement - feedback[edit]


  • Surveys.


  • Lack of interest/knowledge on part of the community outside staff, board and entities involved in the process.
  • FDC being only in english is a problem.
  • Community has difficulty understanding the process. Hard to review the proposal form. Hard to understand what the entity is doing/planning.
  • 2 weeks period is to short to read, understand and give a reasonable comment on all proposals.


  • Peer review could help the process or could be considered as part of eligibility in order to balance the process, since community participation is very low.

Overhead and process costs - feedback[edit]


  • Volunteers ands employees are spending months on the process.
  • Excessive bureaucracy.


  • GAC is an easier process, and may be a better solution to some entities.
  • Request for mentoring from FDC to the applying entities may help.
  • Looking for help from qualified volunteers/pro bono support might be a solution.
  • Allow some flexibililty within bids (e.g. 5% non specified for innovation and opportunities).

Appeals - resume[edit]

All appeals regarding the FDC process can be seen here.

There were contacts regarding the following topics:

Round 1[edit]

  • Donors, donations and allocations: here.
  • Criticism on how the Wikimedia Foundations spends the funds: here.

Round 2[edit]

  • Comment on staff assesment regarding internal situation of chapter: here.
  • Retrospective disqualification of WMCZ and WMHK (with report on complaint): here.