Grants talk:APG/FDC recommendations/2015-2016 round 1

Comments regarding WMDE recommendation

When I read all this, I have to state, that to install the FDC was one of the worst ideas in the history of the Wikimedia movement. A few busybodies, for those obviously to the authors and to the goals of this project is not of importance. But ofcourse the "real important thing" is, we have "super cool" software! For what the volunteers? They only generate the money - why should we give it to them for their work? Terrible work! Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Marcus Cyron. User:Pine posed some questions relating to this specific recommendation on the Wikimedia-L mailing list. As I noted on that list, I am copying over my response to him to this page, as it applies to some extent to your comments, as well. The are below:

WMDE did not submit a restricted grant request for Wikidata. WMDE submitted a restricted grant request for Wikidata and other software projects, and then said that it was not able to disaggregate the budgets for each of these two separate projects. Most other proposals were able to provide greater detail on the cost of individual programs within their proposal, despite the fact that they sought dramatically fewer resources. As well, the Wikidata project specifically is working toward a direct funding package with the WMF, and it will be essential for those costs to be clearly disaggregated in order for this to happen. They will not be able to include the costs of other programs in that agreement, and they will have to be able to more accurately apportion costs such as rent, administrative overhead, supplies and services.

In addition, it has sectioned off the majority of its budget from direct FDC input, stating that it is not seeking Annual Plan Grant (APG) funding for that portion of its budget. Nonetheless, that budget is paid for out of money intended for the growth of the movement. FDC members were able to identify several points in that aspect of the WMDE annual plan that appear to be disproportionately funded compared to similar programs from other chapters, and the FDC believed that there are plenty of opportunities for cost saving in the administrative and other areas that would ensure funding for the planned software development which is intended to provide benefits to both the local editing community and the Wikimedia movement.

I hope this is somewhat helpful to you, Marcus Cyron. Risker (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading Nikki Zeuner's comments on Wikimedia-l, and the grant and talk page in a bit more detail, it is apparent that Wikimedia Deutschland did provide a figure for Wikidata's costs, albeit not in a particularly clear or forthcoming manner. It's contained within first eight rows of table 6b here. That totals EUR978,944. While I don't think this observation affects the FDC's overall reasoning, which was clearly influenced by a number of different factors, I don't think it is true to say that Wikimedia DE failed to disaggregate Wikidata costs from other project costs. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris, how many staff works on WikiData vs other tech projects include in the proposal? What's include under "Administrative Overhead"? It enough to look on others chapter budgets (Sverige, Argentina, Österreich and others) in order to see the level of detailed in the budget that each chapter provided for a much lower requests. --Itzike (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well those are perfectly good questions and observations, and I am not trying to say that the FDC came to the wrong conclusion. I do think it is important though to acknowledge that there was a figure provided (albeit ssomewhat buried in the talk page, albeit not including any allocation of overheads) for how much Wikidata costs. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Chris! Good we are having this discussion here, openly.

Are you referring to this particular page as buried? Actually, to me this one was pretty visible and I can wholeheartedly rest you assured that all of us know this table (6b) very well and we used it (with additional information obtained) during our deliberations. Actually, (I think I can reveal such a technicality) Itzik himself put our spreadsheet calculations on a big screen utilizing data from this table, and I was doublechecking it for myself on my laptop (he was alright). The final number for WMDE can be seen as "round" in a result of final rounding but this surprisingly high roundness (80%) is highly by chance.

Side note: AFAIK Wikidata programmatic costs (regardless of exact definition) are rather different and higher than 8 first lines. And yes, other proposals (like WMSE) could do much more to allocate "overhead costs" (like general staff, office etc.) to particular projects and I assume they used it when preparing and applying for their restricted grants with external institutions.

I hope I helped. aegis maelstrom δ 22:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments regarding political advocacy

• "the FDC has noted that several applicants have expressed an interest in political advocacy"—Does that include political advocacy for free knowledge, reform in copyright law? If not, it would be useful if you could define the boundary. Tony (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Tony1. The simple answer here is "yes". :-) We aren't defining a boundary here, we are remarking on what has been proposed by the various organisations working in this area (e.g., see Wikimedia Österreich and Wikimedia Sverige's proposals, amongst others). It is also worth noting that each proposal ends with a declaration saying "I verify that this proposal requests no funds from the Wikimedia Foundation for political or legislative activities." Does that help answer your question? If not, please could you clarify it? Wittylama (talk) (posted on behalf of Mike Peel)

That’s a joke, isn’t it?

“We have recommended a reduced amount for WMDE in this round with the expectation that WMDE will not cut Wikidata or their other tech development work, but will instead find cost savings elsewhere in its annual plan.”
So let me get this strait: WMDE requested money at the FDC for WikiData and other tech-projects. The FDC has cut the requested money (for various reasons), but WMDE should NOT cut at WikiData or other tech-projects? Why should we? If WikiData (and the other tech-projects) is SO important, the FDC should had grant the full sum. Why should we move money from other sources (which is needed at other places for much more important stuff than WikiData) to WikiData? --DaB. (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DaB. Please read Risker's response to Marcus above, which hopefully also clarifies the concerns you've raised. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Risker’s post doesn’t answer my question. The money WMDE does NOT request at the FDC is NOT under the concern of the FDC. So again my question: Why should we move money (for example from the member-fees, which has NOTHING to do with the “movement”) to WikiData? --DaB. (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DaB., sorry for the delayed response. The following is my personal opinion, not necessarily the view of the committee. All of the money that WMDE spends, including membership fees, has essentially been received on behalf of the Wikimedia movement (would it have been received if the Wikimedia movement didn't exist?), so I'd argue that it should be subject to community review (which is what the FDC helps enable) and peer review (directly through the FDC deliberations), in order to make sure that it's being spent in a way that makes the most impact. Hopefully that fills in the gap between your question and Risker's response. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)