Jump to content

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Resource Allocation

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Llywrch in topic Competitive pay

Update from the working group


Just to say that as of 9th May we've looked through the comments here and are looking to incorporate these in our recommendation process. Thank you for taking the time to share and I'm looking forward to more Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Area of inquiry


Current situation


Too few Collaboratively building and evaluation by Affiliates


sAPG grants are created (requested) by each single Affiliate independently, and subsequently evaluated by a small team of WMF appointed evaluators (mostly staff members) with too few knowledge and understanding of the local culture. There is a risk that Affiliates are not being objectively evaluated and pro rata gifted with the right grant depending on their potential and requirements. It is also difficult to objectively evaluate and compare/balance the results amongst Affiliates. Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grant decisions taking too long


This is the main problem concerning resource allocation we are facing now at Wikimedia Portugal. The grant decisions are taking so long (sometimes many months) that they seriously risk destroying the event they were asked to fund, with the bad image of the Wikimedia movement - and the Wikimedia Foundation - that gives to the partner institutions involved.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Grant decisions also seem to be subject to secret decisions taken by unstated individuals inside WMF based on false accusations one is not informed of, nor can even appeal. WMF should decide on those grants based in the best interests of the Wikimedia Movement, not in their own interests, and much less in the personal interests of individuals inside their organization.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why this scope


Key questions


On q8 about impact: I just wanted to share User:The Land/Thinking about the impact of the Wikimedia movement my essay on this from a few years ago, in case it's still useful for you. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply



Does Endowment and Foundation investment policy fall within the purview of this group? (Does it fall within both Resource Allocation and Revenue Streams?) If so, please consider benchmarking investment performance against institutional endowment-grade mutual funds and studies of endowment performance.[1] Please see also [2]. Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. James Salsman (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

We consider it a resource that will eventually be allocatable. However, I've pinged this comment over to Revenue Streams for closer examination Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Competitive pay


Please approve remaining competitive with other top-ten website compensation by paying San Francisco-livable salaries for managers, staff, interns, contractors, and vendors at all levels. James Salsman (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Or perhaps move the headquarters from San Francisco to a less expensive city? SF ranks second only to Manhattan/NYC in the top 20 most expensive cities to live in, where the cost of living is twice the US average. source The headquarters could be moved to, say, Chicago, Denver or Atlanta, where the cost of living is much less & not much less cosmopolitan. -- Llywrch (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Financial transparency and Non-WMF revenue sources and revenue allocation


Please see the comments on the Working Group's talk page. James Salsman (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Feedback and Input from Wikimedia Austria


This is feedback from WMAT's expert group for international affairs, the input was also discussed with our board and community.

  • The movement has only learned in recent years to embrace the international aspects that help us all improve our work and our understanding of who we are as an international movement. This should also be reflected in the way we approach a long-term strategy for collecting and distributing money. Every affiliate is knowledgeable in their local context, but does not necessarily have the expertise to use this to their advantage. Other affiliates have built expertise in certain areas over the last 10+ years and are able to support and advise other affiliates in those areas. This is what we need to build on in order to advance our mission until 2030. Using the expertise we already have as building blocks for a long-term strategy will help us reach further than in any other case.
  • Accountability within the movement has been an issue ever since certain affiliates started fundraising themselves. We have seen in past years that there is a very diverging view on what is money well spent and what is not. Spending money needs to follow a common understanding, signed by every affiliate, that should include values like financial prudence and acting in the common interest of the stakeholders involved in our projects. This common understanding can and should be expanded on on a regional and local level to accurately reflect views, laws and ethics that only exist in that region or country. Furthermore, the working group should also take into account that internationally English is a barrier for many to access our resources right now. This puts an onus on native English speaking affiliates to explain and document their work much better than we would expect it from people who do not have this advantage. This would be an important step towards equity in terms of resource allocation.

--Wikimedia Österreich (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply