Grants talk:APG/FDC recommendations/2014-2015 round 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is for comments about the FDC's recommendations to the board on funding allocations for Round 1, 2014-15.

Please leave comments under the appropriate section for each entity. For general comments, please leave them in the designated section below.

Formal appeals should be submitted to the Board representatives on the FDC.

General comments on overall recommendations[edit]

Congratulations and applauds for yet another excellent deliberation session! And compared with the one a year ago when I was a member of FDC, I find the work being even further evolved and I am very happy to see some of my unfufllied ambitions from last year now being fully met.Anders Wennersten (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anders, many thanks for your positive feedback. You and your passionate diligence have been dearly missed. Pundit (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also thank you for your participation in he community review, it has been greatly appreciated. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

External funds[edit]

I have a personal curiosity about this statement: "The FDC notes that in general organizations in the Global North have significant opportunities to secure external funds, which may not be as easily accessible in the Global South". It would be important if the FDC supports this note with some external analysis and with some external sources, because at the moment it's a simple feeling and as feeling it may be wrong. My personal experience (it's not a simple feeling) is the opposite and basically that in the Global North there are several opportunities to funds charitable projects to be done in the Global South. Big donors or charitable foundations reserves big funds to support projects in the Global South. So it would be good to understand the position of the FDC:

  1. Are these funds a lost and under-evaluated opportunity for the chapters of the Global North to have projects funded but to be done in the Global South?
  2. Are these funds a lost and under-evaluated opportunity for the chapters of the Global South which are looking for local funds and don't have sufficient maturity to evaluate several opportunities outside their countries?

The question is important because these opportunities are not taken by both. The Global North considers the projects in the Global South not of their competence and in the other side the Global South may consider that it's not of their competence to look for big donors outside their countries. I may personally give some links to the FDC about some kind of these foundations and about their funding plans for Global South.

These funds are easily accessible from Global South, it's sufficient to demonstrate to have good governance, to be transparent and to be accountable. --Ilario (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A short note: this is a generalization, as we did not want to go into too many details. My own experience with applying for funds was at some point that it was getting MORE difficult as donors moved, as the country developed. However, we are referring also to corporate sponsorships, tax deductions, etc. Pundit (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you that we need, as a movement, more research and analysis about what funds are available where. I would go even further, and say that we also need to think together about what we want our fundraising strategy, as a whole, to be. Small donors? Big donors? Restricted funds for specific projects? Unrestricted funds? Endowment? No endowment? There are many questions to be answered as to what this strategy would be as a movement, and of course many local specificities which we would have to take into account. In my opinion, we are still at the beginning of this conversation and there is much work to be done.
On your specific questions (which I hope I understand fully), I will try a more global answer:
I think saying that there are lost opportunities on both side is probably a good analysis of the situation today. One crucial part of your question is whether entities in the Global North should be looking for funds that would finance projects in the Global South. I am not sure the question is phrased adequately. My take on this is that “movement resources” are exactly this, “movement-wide resources”. What I mean by that is that every dollar that comes into the movement, whatever way it comes into the movement, is part of “movement funds”. As such, it is our duty as organisations to look at where “on the whole”, those dollars are going to be best spent, not really “where” they come from to know where they’re going to go. In an ideal world, all entities in a position to do so would manage to find funds for themselves and their programs and on top of that enough funds for other entities’ needs and programs, where needed and applicable. I think you are right in saying that there are funding opportunities “from” the Global South that we do not today take into consideration, but I also think that we need to find a balance towards achieving our mission both frugally and efficiently. For that, we need to look at the areas where our work (and the money entrusted to us) achieves the most. I cannot say with certainty that this is here or there, and I am putting great hopes in Wikimedia working on strategizing better and further where exactly as a movement we want to go, so we can make the money decisions with as many cards (data, knowledge, impact analysis etc.) as we can in our hands.
While I understand that entities in the Global North may think it is not their competence (as organizations) to *go* and *do* things in the Global South, I do think that it may be of importance to them to see how the funds they bring in can be redistributed in the best possible way on a global scale. This said, it is true that Wikimedia entities in the Global South at this stage may be less experienced or less structured (in any case, there are less of them to start with) and have not started to look outside (or at least probably not enough) of their own geography for funds available for their projects. I think we shouldn’t forget also that many a times, those entities may be faced with more “day to day” challenges (access to internet, knowledge of our projects, literacy etc.) which have not allowed them to concentrate on fundraising more efficiently and on a broader scale.
I do hope that this will change as our fundraising strategy as a movement evolves, and that all entities, regardless of where they are from, are going to develop to be able to seize funding opportunities where they are most readily available. notafish }<';> 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding to Delphine’s answer, I would like to mention that even there are a lot of funds available for NGOs on the so-called Global South, they usually have other priorities: improving housing quality, reducing poverty, increasing access to health, etc., etc. Certainly, Wikimedia can do a lot to improve the access to knowledge and is something really valuable, but it is not a priority compared to activities other NGOs are doing, so the number of available grants is not that much at the end. I’ve been there asking for funds and the first question usually is in the line of “How will this reduce poverty?” and doing edit-a-thons, photo contests and GLAM projects are not really doing this. Some chapters can do an important work increasing internet access to some communities (working on minority languages, giving access through offline projects like Kiwix) but it also needs a lot of expertise so these programs can have a real impact. These projects can have more possibilities to get external funds, for example.
Obviously, Wikimedia chapters everywhere should start looking new opportunities for funding, but considering most of the affiliates from the Global South are small entities, I would prefer them to focus on programmatic work instead of looking for funds at this moment. --Osmar Valdebenito, B1mbo (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Osmar
My question was really simple. I am speaking about "lost opportunities". It's not a question why they are lost, it's a question to know who is losing opportunities. About the other priorities, the external funds may be a real good opportunities to improve what is not in the strategy of WMF like housing quality, reducing poverty, increasing access. So who are losing opportunities are really the countries where those are a priority. Basically it could be interesting to know that these funds can bring more benefits to the Global South, so the value of "lost" is more relevant. --Ilario (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External funds number 2[edit]

Other questions connected with the introduction of the request to look for external funds.

  1. A chapter who has to find external funds for projects has more workload because there is a big preliminary work to setup a fundraising and to find funds but also to follow the donors. To be honest the current system of evaluation is not aligned with this request because this preliminary workload is requested but not evaluated. It should be considered that some chapters have an handicap like the horses that are better than others receiving an additional weight in order to have a same level of capacity. At the moment the system seems to be simple a calculation about who wins (with or without handicap) and not an evaluation about the consideration that someone would have done a better work without a handicap. I suggest that the FDC will ask to review the parameters of evaluation as consequence of the request of external funds.
  2. A chapter has to reorganize its staff and to re-arrange the priorities. This means a "change management" to be evaluated, so costs and time. Who pays this change management? Probably someone has to consider that for several months the chapters have to spend more time in fundraising than in projects and community support because the staff members cannot increase a lot and they have to divide the workload having the same organization than last years. This should be evaluated as consequence of the request for external funds.
  3. Looking for funds means to enlarge also the numbers of stakeholders. The stakeholders give the strategy and give the priorities. Is the FDC aware that they cannot continue to evaluate the strategy and the priorities of a chapter like done previously? And that the chapter has to manage more stakeholders with a level of complexity bigger than previously? It means that the FDC (and WMF in general) has to consider itself as a stakeholder of the chapters but at the same level of other stakeholders and to harmonize their requests to those of the others.

Basically the request of the FDC to look for external funds is transforming the role of the chapters and introducing in them more the value of fundraiser than that of community supporter even if it's evident that the request to do that is not connected with a lack of funds but more with a "general" request of risk reduction without a clear risk evaluation. So basically the priority and the organization of chapters has to be changed even if the feeling of the top priorities is different from that suggested by the FDC (the risk reduction may be connected with a reduction of the annual incoming of funds through the Wikipedia's banner but in this case the main risk is up to the WMF and with its incapacity to run the infrastructure and the service, the chapters can survive to this scenario but it does not make sense because a wikimedia chapter without wikimedia projects have no sense).

My request is to know if the FDC has considered the consequences of this request and if they have considered that their importance will change in future. --Ilario (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit: it was surprising to me that EU is explicitly mentioned as one funder to approach. Why EU and not – say – UNO, UNESCO, USA, the Russian Federation, or some Arab fund? Personally, I have a very positive view of EU, but someone else may see it as a threat rather than an opportunity. --Nemo 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As I have stated on the mailing list, the FDC encourages to look for external funding when sensible and possible, but does not intend to transform the role of the chapters. It is pretty straightforward: there are even chapters which themselves signal that getting external support (in-kind or financial) should not be difficult. The FDC encourages them to explore these opportunities. It cannot and should not be read as an invitation to radically change strategy, transform, hire a wagon of fundraisers, or anything of this sort. The FDC perceives diversification as valuable (as it decreases the overall risk related to funding for us a as movement), but only when striving for it is not an unreasonable strain, and does not divert the attention from our main task. Pundit (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding Amical Wikimedia[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia Argentina[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia Österreich[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia CH[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia Deutschland[edit]

Guys, you are joking, right? There may be different positions about the changing of the ED, but that’s a 2014 thing – it is very unlikely that the WMDE-board will switch the ED again in 2015, so why punish us now?
That you can’t measure the return of invest in the community is a logical thing. If WMDE is given me money so I can travel to a workshop of the OTRS-team, how do you measure that? That I answer more tickets? And how much is such a ticket worth? If WMDE is lending a professional camera and gives it to a Wikipedian so he/she can make great pictures – how do you measure that? Number of photos? What if there is only 1 important one? Is that better as 100 meaningless? WMDE funded the shooting of nearly all Member of Parliaments in 2014 – that’s worth ten-thousand of € of free content.
You claim that WMDE asked for a too big part of the hole FDC-bugdet; WMDE is also the chapter that gives the most money to the WMF – so where is the problem?
You tell us that WMDE uses too much money for personal. As somebody who runs a internal check of WMDE twice a year I tell you that WMDE needs more administrative personal, not less. And if WMF/FDC really needs more data, then we need also more personal (because somebody has to do the work). --DaB. (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The reduction in recommended allocation is by no means a “punishment”. However, while the ED abrupt change indeed is a 2014 thing, the governance practices that allowed for this situation have not been ostensibly amended, and it does not seem at all that WMDE sees the gravity of situation and the amount of funds involved as problematic. Let me remind you, that the cost of this change for the movement equals the amount that could sustain TWO MEDIUM-SIZED CHAPTERS for a whole year, while just letting the contract expire in due course would involve much less cost and also a smoother transition. However, even though we perceive the way that ED transition was handled as showing significant governance shortcomings, our judgment in this respect is not the main reason behind the overall recommendation and evaluation of this project as it is.
Regarding the impossibility to measure impact - while I’m generally sympathetic to the argument that all great things cannot be measured, we have had a really good comparison to how other proposals tackled this dilemma. And WMDE, by comparison, did not do particularly well (while it has a significantly larger budget). Per your examples: you can count the number of people traveling, and yes - you can count the number of pictures (and the number of good and featured ones among them). If you refused to even check these numbers, basing on the reasoning that surely one priceless picture is enough, it would indeed make impact analysis much more difficult (people may differ in opinion on what constitutes one priceless picture and how much of the movement’s resources it is worth).
The fact that a lot of the movement’s resources come through WMDE surely should not mean that WMDE is entitled to keep them regardless of its effectiveness, frugality, and contribution to the movement.
The personnel - we can only make comparisons to other organizations of this size, but WMDE definitely is quite staffed, as compared even to WMF. Pundit (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
blöde frage; bin ich als wikipedianer davon eigentlich betroffen? da bekommt WMD weniger Geld. Okay, so what? Welche Projekte die die Autoren betreffen werden denn nun nicht mehr durchgeführt werden können? Für mich persönlich gesprochen; Das einzige ist die Kamera für den Festivalsommer. Dessen Kosten sind im verhältnis so mini, das fällt gar nicht auf (und die kameras sind längst angeschafft, die kosten also längst sunk)
stupid question; should I as a wikipedian really be concerned? that WMDE gets less money. Okay, so what? What projects that the authors relate to, then, can not be carried out? Speaking for myself personally; the only thing is the camera for the summer festival. Whose costs are relatively so small that it does not matter. (And the cameras have long since been acquired, the cost sunk long ago)
der dargebrachten kritik kann ich nicht so recht etwas entgegenstellen. Pavels entlassung als solche wurde nicht direkt kritisiert, vielmehr, dass nach seiner plötzlichen entlassung sich ncihts geändert hat, es also nicht so recht nachvollziehbar ist warum das ganze so eilig (und damit zu höheren Kosten) vonstatten gehen musste. - Das scheint mir auch fast der größte kritikpunkt; zumindest wurde der am ausführlichsten beschrieben. ... vielleicht ist da auch WMF vs. WMD-Politik dabei in die wohl nur ausgewählte einen einblick haben (Delphine soll sich ja angeblich im vorfeld so geäußert haben)
The presented criticism I can not oppose quite something. Pavel's dismissal as such was not directly criticized, what is more, since after his sudden dismissal nothing changed, it is also not really understandable why all the hurry (and hence higher cost) had to take place. - That seems to me almost the biggest point of criticism; at least has been described in the most detail. ... Perhaps there is also WMF vs. WMDE politics involved while we have only a selected glimpse. (as Delphine supposedly said beforehand)
vielleicht ist auch WMF-Poltik in dem Satz "is working to decrease their reliance on the APG for funding" versteckt. Das würde die Macht des AGP ja verringern. warum sollten die das gut finden? :)
"administration costs...extremely and unusually high" - wenn dem so ist; blöd und ein guter Grund das Budget zu kürzen. gefühlt würde ich dem zustimmen
"impact expected does not appear to have been reached for many programs" - blödes argument, wahrscheinlich aber nur nicht richtig dargestellt. das budget zu kürzen weil in der vergangenheit etwas nicht erreicht wurde ist nur sinnvoll, wenn sich an den programmen nichts geändert hat bzw. keine änderungen geplant sind. dem wiederum ist wohl so.
perhaps WMF Poltik is also hidden in the phrase "is working to decrease Their reliance on the APG for funding". This would reduce the power of the AGP. why should they find this good? :)
"administration costs ... and extremely unusually high" - if so; stupid and a good reason to cut the budget. I feel I would agree with that
"impact expected does not Appear to have been reached for many programs" - stupid argument, but it probably just isn't presented correctly. To cut the budget because it didn't achieve anything in the past is only useful if little has changed in the programs, or no changes are planned. which in turn is probably the case.
"staff is already oversized" - leider wird nicht ausgeführt woran sie das festmachen. "Some members of the FDC consider" klingt wie gefühlt. gefühlt sehe ich das allerdings auch so.
Spannend finde ich den letzen absatz: "history of overspending and big overheads...Even where funds are secured outside of the APG..." - da wurde also nicht nur geguckt was für sachen beantragt wurden sondern auch eine gesamtschau gemacht. Ob das gut ist bzw. aufgabe des FDC? K.A.
...Sicherlich Post 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"staff is already oversized" - unfortunately what they would fix will not be carried out. "Some members of the FDC consider" sounds like "feelings". Feelings is how I see it also, however.
I find the last section intriguing: "history of overspending and big overheads ... Even where funds are secured outside of the APG ..." - that suggest they looked at not only what has been proposed for projects, but also a general overview. Whether this is good as a task of FDC? No Answer.
You can find much more detailed comments on WMDEs proposal at Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment with specific feedback like WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.Anders Wennersten (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Danke. ... die seite wiederum wartet mit zumindest einem interessanten detail auf; mir zuviel um es komplett zu lesen (nicht zuletzt weil die diversifikation der sprachen sich wie üblich in diesem multilingualen projekt auf englisch reduziert). aber die suche nach Executive und Director, governance verwirrt mich. die umseitige ausführliche erläuterung dass das komisch ist scheint sich dort nicht zu finden. also doch WMF vs. WMD-Politik!? ...Sicherlich Post 13:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. ... The page comes up with at least one interesting detail; too much for me to read it completely (not least because the diversification of languages, as usual in this multilingual project reduced to English). But the search for Executive and Director, governance confuses me. An overleaf detailed explanation that this is a joke, does not seem to exist. Is this also WMF vs. WMDE politics !?
You are right. It also shows that FDC use the staff assesment as a base, but not the only input in their deliberations. And FDC had their last session (when I still was a member) in Frankfurt just when WMDEmeeting discussed the dismissal of Pavel, and where FDC got first hand info on that process. So the writing in the recommendation document reflects the discussion but understates that some other items in the staffassessment also would have been of significant importance, as it would have already been taken in before first round of allocation and discussions.Anders Wennersten (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
also habe ich recht mit der WMF vs. WMD-Politik? Oder ist nur zufällig das umseitig am längsten besprochene thema ohne tiefere Begründung. .. Naja, am Ende auch egal. Ich bekomme das Geld nicht, ich brauche das Geld nicht und ob es nun bei WMD oder WMF versumpft ist am Ende auch egal ;) ...Sicherlich Post 15:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
So I'm right with the WMF vs. WMD politics? Or does it just happen to be the longest-discussed topic without deeper foundation. .. Well, in the end, no matter. I do not get the money, I do not need the money and whether it is bogged down by WMDE or WMF in the end, no matter;)
I do not understand why you mention WMF? As explained, the decision is fully taken and only by the FDC members. And involved from WMF is only FDC-staff, who just provide relevant input to FDC and they are all inactive during the discussions. No mgmt at WMF is involed at all. The chapter budget is controlled by the Board not WMF, and the Board has asked FDC to recomend funding, they have not asked WMF to recommend funding. Anders Wennersten (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
joh; WMF, FDC, Board - was auch immer da bin ich zuwenig drin. irgendein bürokratisches etwas. ggf. gabs eine wahl an der wie üblich kaum jmd. mitgemacht hat - am ende ists auch egal ob die poltik zwischen WMF und WMD oder FDC und WMD passiert. persönliche animositäten halt. zumindest gehe ich davon wie dargestellte von aus. ... aber so oder so; wollte hier ja schon gar nix mehr sagen. ich, wie wohl auch der allergrößte teil der autoren, werden von der entscheidung nicht berührt sein damit kann es uns völlig egal sein was hier passiert oder eben nicht. (und wenn wir es wären hätten wir praktisch keine möglichkeit da irgendwas dran zu ändern ^^ ). ...Sicherlich Post 21:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
: joh; WMF, FDC, Board - whatever, because I'm too little involved. any bureaucratic something. possibly there was a choice in which as usual hardly anyone participated - at the end its also whether the poltics happened between WMF and WMDE, or FDC and WMDE. personal animosities hold. at least I'm assuming as is represented here. ... But either way; there's nothing more I wanted to say here. I, like probably the greatest part of the authors, will not be affected by the decision, therefore it can be all the same to us no matter what happens here or not. (and had it mattered to us, we'd have had virtually no possibility to change anything ^^ ).

┌───────────────────────┘
Can somebody please translate the discussion above? Thanks. -- CristianCantoro (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CristianCantoro - I've interleaved a crude translation. Sicherlich, please doublecheck my work.. Sadly I can only do de->en and not the other direction (for the many de-fluent readers). SJ talk  06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dafür gibts auf dieser multilingualen Plattform keine Kapazitäten. Wer kein Englisch kann versteht die Inhalte nicht, die Diskussionen noch viel weniger. Ich kann von seiten der WMF auch keinerlei interesse erkennen diesbezüglich etwas zu ändern. Siehe bspw. Community Engagement (Product)/Process ideas; wie können Communitys mehr einbezogen werden. Nunja: indem man ihre sprache spricht wäre ein, wenn auch Sicherlich gewagter, anfang :o) - Aber ich verweise auf das Bild auf meiner Benutzerseite. Da braucht man dann auch keine gemeinsame sprache ...Sicherlich Post 18:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no capacity for that on this multilingual platform. Those who can not speak English do not understand the [page] contents, far less the discussions. I can in this regard see no interest on the part of the WMF to make a change in this regard. See for example the Community Engagement (Product) / Process ideas; how can communities be more integrated. Well: speaking their language would be, though certainly bold, a start: o) - But, I refer to the picture on my user page. For that one needs no common language...

I would like to express Wikimedia Deutschland’s gratitude for the time and effort that went into the assessment of our proposal as well as for the guidance that the FDC provides for the overall movement. Additional to the extensive feedback we received from our own community, your comprehensive assessment is extremely helpful to reflect on our annual plan. This outside view on the strengths and weaknesses of certain programs helps us to come to informed decisions. Our annual plan will be adapted in a revised version in spring.

Regarding the FDC’s concerns about our governance structure:

  1. We are looking forward towards the recommendations resulting from our governance review which will be available by the end January.
  2. On November 29, our general assembly elected a new Supervisory Board, for the first time for a two-year term. The new board consists of a diverse mix of very experienced Wikimedians and people with strong professional backgrounds in a variety of sectors crucial to movement impact. They are committed to completing our ED transition and to working collaboratively and effectively with the ED's office, while providing strategic guidance for the years ahead.

Together, we will have to strengthen our Chapter to face the upcoming challenges and opportunities. As we adapt our strategy and our revenue structure to the rapidly changing environment, WMDE will stay true to the mission of fostering free knowledge and strengthen the connections to movement partners. Should any of you have further questions or remarks, please feel invited to reach out to me any time. Best regards, Jan Engelmann (WMDE) (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

community-related budget[edit]

Belonging the argument, the amount of WMDE would be much to high in relation to the other chapters, and that the number of active editors would be decreasing significantly, I've calculated a bit. So here are the amount in relation to the numbers of active editors and to the very active editors.

Entity active editors very active editors (100+) Amount recommended Amount/Editor Amount/very active Editor
Wikimedia Serbia 320 27 98,760 € 309 € 3,658 €
Wikimedia Eesti 230 23 63,477 € 276 € 2,760 €
Wikimedia CH 1,354 51 290,076 € 214 € 5,688 €
Wikimedia Österreich 1,435 57 228,000 € 159 € 4,000 €
Wikimedia Sverige 2,227 82 279,389 € 125 € 3,407 €
Wikimedia Nederland 2,431 148 304,000 € 125 € 2,054 €
Wikimedia Israel 1,813 104 164,122 € 91 € 1,578 €
Wikimedia Argentina 2,022 88 161,832 € 80 € 1,839 €
Amical Wikimedia 1,113 79 82,101 € 74 € 1,039 €
Wikimedia Deutschland 12,720 652 840,000 € 66 € 1,288 €
Wikimedia UK 14,280 512 396,947 € 28 € 775 €

Sources:

Please note, that I'm signing this intentionally with my private account, not with the WMDE one.

--Stepro (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but why for instance the three German-speaking chapters have different numbers of active editors? I couldn't find an explanation of how those numbers are produced, on the explanation page or search.
It would also be interesting to know about the ratio to target-language speakers, to target-geography internet users, to total (fee-paying) members, to active members. --Nemo 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As indicated above, I've taken the numbers from the Staff proposal assessments:
How the WMF determines the numbers I don't know, I'm afraid they are checkusering every edit of every single editor. --Stepro (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes sorry, I wasn't clear enough: my question about how that number is determined was to the WMF staff. I'm not sure where to ask that, I didn't find a page describing the metrics they use in assessments. --Nemo 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it would be also important to link these numbers with the amount of donation per editors during the fundraising. --Ilario (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding Wikimedia Eesti[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia Israel[edit]

"The FDC notes that Wikimedia Israel has a long history of innovative programs, so much so that it is surprising to see less innovation in the current proposal." ...Ignoring the slight condescension, I would urge the FDC to consider this: is innovation such an important measure? If we at WMIL do all sort of cool things that don't scale or cannot be replicated, and don't add new editors and better contact, is it worth it? WMIL made a conscious decision to focus more on what's working, and cover a little less new ground this time.

I'm also dismayed to see so many remarks about lack of focus - I'm afraid the FDC is looking at the past and not the future. We have begun focusing our staff and volunteers toward specific areas, as described by our strategic plan (draft) document, attached to the APG proposal. Sure, having a long term plan is not an instant recipe for focus, and we will work on making it clearer and with better goals and impact in the next year, but for me it is just disappointing to see these remarks, as our proposal has already been centered around long term thinking and planning. Perhaps we did not highlight this point enough. I hope it becomes clearer when we release the full plan. Alleycat80 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that innovation should not be perceived as an ultimate goal per se. In fact, solid, impeccable replication is often better, just as you write. However, innovations can rely also on improvements of existing models, on creative exploitation of current resources, etc. Regarding focus - I think the main problem for any organization (not just WMIL) is only focusing on programs, which have the highest impact and have synergy with the others. It is great that you see this and are gradually consolidating your operations and strategy. Please, keep in mind that all recommendations and evaluations are, by definition, slightly skewed to the past, as they have to partly rely on your programs execution and results. Pundit (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, sure. Thanks for the feedback and reply, Pundit. I want to just remark that or ED and team (as well as us, board members and some key volunteers of course) have been working on improving the effectiveness of programs. Hopefully this will be reflected in 2015's results. Cheers. Alleycat80 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding Wikimedia Nederland[edit]

I would like to thank the FDC for their thoughtful assessment of the WMNL grant proposal. We appreciate the time and effort of all the individual FDC members. We also thank the FDC for their support and recommendations that, we feel, were aimed to make WMNL a stronger chapter.

Our intention is to carry out the annual plan as originally proposed to our members, to WMF staff and to the FDC. We will implement a careful planning and budgeting system for individual projects and I have no doubts that we will find ways to reduce overall costs without lowering the level of activities.

We will increase our fundraising efforts, of course within the limits of our mission. This will take some time, but in the current year we have received some encouraging signals and we will follow up this leads.

Regards, Frans Grijzenhout (chair) Grijz (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback. Pundit (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments regarding Wikimedia Serbia[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia Sverige[edit]

Comments regarding Wikimedia UK[edit]

As the interim CEO for Wikimedia UK I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers and staff of the FDC for their work in assessing the annual grant applications. I understand that a huge amount of work is required, and we are most grateful for the care and detailed consideration that has gone into the FDC's recommendations.

While we are of course disappointed that our requested grant has not been fully funded, we do not underestimate the challenges that face us in the UK as we move towards a new executive leadership, and we recognise the need for WMF funds to be seen to be used as effectively as possible. We are actively working to improve the efficiency of the programmes that we support, and fully understand that only by engaging more actively with our large potential volunteer base can we hope to realise our ambition of moving to a significantly higher level of charitable impact to the benefit of the Wikimedia movement. In addition to sharing our own experiences and helping other movement organisations where we can, we remain actively open to learning from the experiences and suggestions of others including the suggestions of the FDC. Thank you again. (Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) on behalf of D'Arcy Myers, Wikimedia UK interim Chief Executive)

Thank you for your feedback. Should you need to talk to any of us regarding our allocation, remarks and recommandations, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thanks Stevie for passing the message along. Best, Delphine aka notafish }<';> 19:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC) -
+1 Pundit (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparison[edit]

I'm augmenting the chart from Grants:APG/FDC portal/FDC recommendations/2014-2015 round1#Recommendations with approximate U.S. amounts and a comparison of amount requested versus amount recommended. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Entity Amount requested Amount recommended Amount requested (U.S.) Amount recommended (U.S.) Change in allocation from last year Difference in request and recommendation
Amical Wikimedia €82,101 €82,101 $107,798 $107,798 10.95% 0%
Wikimedia Argentina $214,000 $212,000 $214,000 $212,000 21.14% -0.935%
Wikimedia Osterreich €240,000 €228,000 $315,120 $300,000 11.76% -4.798%
Wikimedia CH CHF500,000 350,000 $544,000 $380,000 -3.31% -30.147%
Wikimedia Deutschland €1,200,000 €840,000 $1,575,600 $1,100,000 -35.19% -30.185%
Wikimedia Eesti €63,477 €63,477 $83,345 $83,345 26.78% 0%
Wikimedia Israel ₪960,000 ₪770,000 $268,000 $215,000 8.60% -19.776%
Wikimedia Nederland €340,000 €304,000 $498,940 $399,000 0.00% -20.03%
Wikimedia Serbia €103,510 €98,760 $135,909 $130,000 23.45% -4.348
Wikimedia Sverige kr.2,557,000 kr.2,557,000 $366,000 $366,000 1.99% 0%
Wikimedia UK £405,000 £314,000 $672,381 $520,000 -11.05% -22.663%
Total $4,729,525 $3,812,000