Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Resource Allocation/Meeting notes
Strategy research presentation on equity
Angelika Arutyunova and Working Group members made introductions and together agreed with the workflow to present research findings in the discussion.
- Ten people had been Interviewed. Some of the highlights on outcomes from the interviews and research mainly revolved around the following areas;
- Communities that have been left out and how their needs will be incorporated into the discussions and outcomes of the Movement Strategy Process.
- Partners’ centered cooperation approach and Wikimedia acting as a decentralised satellite, rather than having Wikimedia Foundation as the Sun for the implementation of the Strategic Direction to create impact to the movement and society.
- Innovation and risk taking to provide independent decision making and recognition to community needs.
- Leveraging resources, distribution of knowledge for capacity building, sustainability of collaboration between the partners, institutions, and the movement.
- Accountability, recognition, appreciation of worthy emeritus contributors and enabling current Wikimedians take Wikimedia to another level in the Strategic Direction.
- Determination of structures for resource allocation, grantmaking and models, budgeting for risks and democratisation of resources.
Decentralisation would work once structures, processes and systems also change. Structures and strategy can be done at the same time. Equity is about accessibility, culture, ownership (how can we have cross-regional conversations of equity in every continent).
Community conversations updates
Community conversations feedback for Resource Allocation can be helpful in scenarios development, a dedicated Working Group member needs to be identified to look into this feedback, which can be sent back to the communities via contracted, language, community, and volunteer liaisons.
Work Plan and Update on scenarios
A walkthrough of the internal Working Group timeline for activities (workplan) for upcoming months was done and updated. Some of the content which was not considered in developing the scoping document is being used as background content to write the scenarios.
- The Core Team shared the framing of the scenario model with drivers that can be of help in identifying, connecting, and constructing similar elements for scenarios.
- Scenarios will help in practical, rather than theoretical thinking, as the Working Group develops scenarios for recommendations, however, there’s no need of agreeing to the variables for now, since the focus is on the different aspects of building our future, which involves many different important elements.
- The framing questions will be used as the primary starting point for the building of scenarios, once the information (from scenarios) is available, the knowledge will help the Working Group in drafting the recommendations.
- If the Working Group has scenarios ready by 17 May, they (scenarios) can be discussed on 20 May, and later a check in with other Working Groups’ liaisons.
- James and Violeta created a list for decision making models that might be helpful regarding the scenario and the desk research.
- Pairing for the development of recommendation scenarios has been done. A couple of questions/templates that would answer these scenarios would be useful.
- Questions can be about decision making structures, resources being tied with impact, and design for the ever changing complexities of the movement.
- Using scenarios as a guide to answer scoping questions.
- It would be useful if people can share data that they have from the Berlin meeting, and keeping an eye on the meta page for any interesting data.
- Liam is in touch with Michael Hedson, and he also received a positive update from an organisation he reached out to regarding the Survey.
- Once any work: creating content, ideas, case studies are completed, a link should be added to a spreadsheet to engage in good conversations.Scenarios may be also good conversation starters and can be shared publicly, based on the mechanics of the Cunningham’s Law.
Next steps for Resource Allocation Working Group:
- International Civil Society Centre has responded, and can be invited to an in-person meeting or one of the Working Group calls. The research project will benefit the Roles and Responsibilities Working Group.
- More organisations (which are not on the list used by WMF for its research) need to be added to the survey before the questionnaire is sent.
- There were moments of stress and frustration, which are expected in a transformation process. Discussions and engagement between affiliates and Working Groups, showed the importance of the Work being done.
- The first Wikimedia Summit where people left happy, with enthusiasm and acknowledgement of frustration, but with more intense, positive outcomes than in the past.
- Work Plan, clarity, and relief about the next steps.
The timeline shared by the Core Team is what the Working Group based on, to determine milestones in 3 streams of Work:
- Research on people outside Wikimedia
- Drafting recommendations from the template shared by Core Team
- Community consultations which was not the Core Team’s piece but the Working Group can use this if needed.
Discussion about specific ideas on developing recommendations
- Aggregate ideas that have come up against various scoping questions by having Working Group members split in pairs and create scenarios that they can think through
- Pairs would be working till mid-May
- End of May: General discussions as a Working Group from subgroup ideas
- This will get us to version 1 of the recommendations which will be reviewed with other Working Groups in June/July to produce version 2 that would be refined at Wikimania.
- End of May: General discussions as a Working Group from subgroup ideas
- Community consultations are at the moment empty, besides talking to people who are not within the movement, this can be done end of April with Whose Knowledge
- There’s need to review structures that will evolve over time.
- Some of the Resource Allocation documents/scoping questions can be used as a basis for research.
Areas of overlap in the scoping documents of other Working Groups
- ‘Different kind of resources’, Money, Organisational development, hand holding, training and capacity building, Access and equity.
- Structural barriers around grants: We want to be diverse but have to be part of the community before we make them part of our grant structures.
- Volunteering, monetary compensation for editing (Paid editing), financial subsidy for volunteers and non staff members.
- Besides mentioning a generic lack of resources., there’s no overlap.
- Building Wikimedia as an efficient partner in the Big Open meeting.
- What kind of infrastructure do we create to be an efficient partner within the Wikimedia communities and for external groups, how can we be more strategic across external partners.
- Technical capacity; Tools that are not maintained and developed, this could mean an implication of resources.
- Point of assumption that movement funds would be distributed equitably.
- Implementation pathway: Implication of increased amount of resources required for supporting revenue augmentation efforts.
Roles and Responsibilities
- Very high level. No overlap.
- Overlap in allocating of resources for building capacity.
Product and Technology
- Funding section.
- Relationship between Wikimedia movement and Mediawiki development.
Wikimedia Summit next steps
- One of the deliverables from the Wikimedia Summit will be determined from the sessions.
- Wikimedia Summit participants will come to all the Working Groups to discuss the Scoping documents.
- This is an opportunity to collect data and feedback from across the movement.
- There is time for Working Group discussion and coming up with a plan after the summit.
- All other meetings at the Summit are scheduled so as not to conflict with the work and discussions of Working Groups.
The discussion provided a debrief from Itzik’s email and Next Steps after scoping
Debrief from Itzik: Itzik appreciated the work of the Working Group, and provided context to his perception of the Strategy Process.
- Working Group members also expressed the existence of many different levels and discussions of “strategy” in the Movement (e.g. global, organizational, brand), and the need to have these (strategies) working together.
- The Core Team is taking forward structural discussions/reform process, which sometimes might feel heavy, as it focuses on all Movement structures. As it is Movement Strategy, there is a need for community involvement and participatory approaches. It is also difficult to focus on the big picture.Wikimedia 2030 process is an ambitious one which has rarely been done by any other organisations in a global scale. All feedback that will improve this process and make the experience of participants and stakeholders better, is welcomed by the Core Team.
- The initial process design saw Working Group members as subject matter experts. Freedom and ownership were important design points.
- The Core Team has stepped in to provide more guidance to ensure that there is more clarity and that things get done, but this has not always happened in the best possible way and has sometimes created confusion.
Next Steps after scoping: Among the key activities after scoping will be:
- Preparing for the Wikimedia Summit
- Community conversations
- Reviewing scoping documents from other Working Groups to determine points of interaction and deviation, avoiding possible overlaps across the groups.
Discussion focused on scoping feedback, timeline, and next steps
A general outline and next steps after scoping were highlighted;
- The scoping documents were submitted: Core Team provided feedback.
- Responses from the Working Group regarding this feedback will be needed in 24 hours, if the Working Group wants to make any changes.
- Scoping document will then be shared with WMF Legal Team, before publishing on meta.
- Community conversations will then start.
- Including translation to the 9 languages, feedback from Whose Knowledge, in person discussions, and community conversations .
Feedback review The Core Team had new members provide scoping document feedback to gather new perspectives. Some of the outstanding comments and discussion/responses from the Working Group members on the different sections of the scoping document were;
- Scoping questions: Distinction between programmatic vs structural
- Programmatic is more related to activities, annual agendas, whereas structural is focused on the movement structures and the different bodies within the movement, the structural change might need to be more elaborated.
- Clarifying the area of inquiry, and how it relates to the current and future situation (Regarding the current situation: the scenario mapping doesn’t provide an overview, it’s Foundation centered, and not looking at the world beyond wikimedia, but only the current grant making)
- In the point of view of Working Group members, opportunities in the current situation were expected to be determined from the community feedback, for example from the unequal distribution of resources.
- In perspective of the Core Team, Working Group might need to define scenarios with a big picture focus about the future.
- Why the scope and area of inquiry questions seem to be similar and can be merged or flipped. Possibly a native English speaker from the Working Group can phrase these questions better.
- Revisiting the community questions.
- Making the changes might be possible in the next 24 hours, but these might not be done in a procedural way since it’s a short timeframe.
Reflections from the Core Team were not prescriptive and they were meant to act as an orientation to what will come out from external feedback and community conversations.
The main area of discussion was the Resource Allocation Scoping document, including a high level summary, up to 10 key scoping questions and up to 3 community conversation questions.
Ideas to consider were:
- Identifying boundaries for the discussions,
- Map out commonalities between the areas that can be the basis for merging materials,
- Determine equity, keeping in mind relation to perspectives from distant and emerging communities.
In addition to the scoping document a wider set of questions can be published and linked for further reading but will not be translated. These supplementary questions would be more specific and helpful for groups that might need more context about the Movement Strategy.
An overview of activities to happen before the Wikimedia Summit (scheduled from 29-31 March) was provided, which included;
- Synchronization between working groups
- Active participation in community conversations
- Determining key discussion points and handouts to maximize these conversations at the summit.
Agenda: Scoping Workflow and Review
The current scoping document was discussed; advice was provided by the Core Team to have the text on some of the sections in three paragraphs, in order to contextualize the scoping document.
The areas of inquiry and other sections were discussed. The number of scoping questions that need to be added for community conversations was specified.
- A suggestion was made to get a few people (who are not part of the target group, and do not know the topic - Resource Allocation) to test community questions, which are due by March 3
Agenda: In Person meeting preparation and Next Steps
A three day program overview, goals and expected outcomes of the in person meeting were discussed.
Key topics for the meeting included
- Creating definitions for Knowledge equity
- An update on members’ research
- Definition of the resources and
- Coming to an agreement on the scope of the Working Group.
It was noted that other groups might be interested in the Resource Allocation inquiry into the definition of equity.
- All the 3 working groups will use the Berlin in person meeting to accomplish most of the scoping work.
Agenda: Aims of the in-person Meeting/Document and Research by Michał and Christian
- Proposals for the aim of the in-person meeting
- Handling difficult questions in a structured format that are hard to answer online.
- Approaches that will avoid conflicting recommendations on resource distribution.
- Caution needs to be taken not to limit the Group to the current objectives without considering outside views, so having the other Working Groups together can be helpful to share ideas on table, and supplement them. There needs to be openness towards other groups not present at in-person meeting
- We can look at contradictions and try to answer questions on why they exist, for example individual perspectives versus group objectives.
- Discussion of socializing time in Berlin
Document/Research by Michał and Christian
- Possible materials to be shared by WMF in the future are:
- Regulatory barriers
- Grant making models.
- Resource allocation for grants that have happened in the last 10 years and the changes with new Strategic Direction
- FDC research can be done in collaboration with Revenue Streams group
- It makes sense to have a look on current resource allocation responsibilities
- Separate question is looking at other resources beyond finances
January 14, 2019
Agenda: Virtual Facilitation/Roles and Responsibilities email
Action points from previous meeting
The Virtual Facilitator for Resource Allocation Working Group, attended the meeting to understand discussions for future support when the Working Group needs facilitation on selected sessions.
A review of action points from the last call was provided, with members giving an update on key definitions, and research on the meaning of equity from different communities (In India and Netherlands), which revealed that a few communities seemed to understand these terms, since they are not translated to make it simple for them. Other discussions on this topic have been scheduled to happen
- Due to the difficulty in defining equity, a facilitated discussion was proposed in Berlin during the in person meeting to define other terms, and data in resource allocation beyond income sources and expenses.
- Another definition was to determine what the resources are, and if volunteers are considered part of the resources
- How can they be helped in terms of resource allocation for example unstructured or unaffiliated communities organising an event but in need of resources.
- Looking at human capital: people to provide content to Wikimedia, and how they can improve from the time they joined, it could be something like Public speaking, so capacity goes beyond money to a human feeling: the Capacity Building Team can understand what these resources are then priorities allocation.
- Or only consider financial resources like total budgets of Wikimedia affiliates, budgets, funders, number of volunteers.
- Sharing this meta data publicly on wikidata for querying.
- For the Funds Dissemination Committee, the data can be put together on how the money comes in and out. We can ask the Revenue Streams Working Group.
- For big institutions this data should exist publicly to be discussed within the group and then external people.
Email from Roles and Responsibilities
The request from Chris is What in the existing structures works and doesn’t work, and for who? a topic which has not yet been discussed in the Resource Allocation Working Group.
- It’s good to coordinate this with the Resource Allocation Working Group but discussions are not yet at structures, but moving according to the scoping plan and timeline/document that we talked about for next steps.