User:Anders Wennersten/FDC thoughts
|This is a draft document. My aim in writing this is to provide feedback into the FDC Advisory group's review of the FDC in May this year. Early drafts of text may not accurately reflect my viewpoints; and may be rewritten over time. Feedback is welcome on the talk page.|
I've been serving on the FDC since September 2012 and will end my term this summer.
This document sets out my views of what has worked well with the FDC over the last two years, and what can be improved.
An excellent working "mechanism"
The people involved, the members and supporting staff, has been outstanding in their competence, commitment and broadness of experience. It has been one of the best setup of a group and staff I heve ever experienced in my 40 years of work, being involved in some 100 workgroups
The process has an excellent setup and is working very well. Also the feedback from the involved entitites in the April Chapter meeting gave that the process is about accepted now. There is a bit too much paper work required which should be possible to ease now when the process is established
But has it achieved what it was set up to do?
Growth of entities and balance of growths/size between entitites
Outside the exceptions of WMF and WMDE, FDC has managed to encourage appropriate growth in small and medium sized entities at the same time been able to limit growths on big entities where growth could mean losing the creative base of these organisations. Also FDC have worked well to secure that funding is in some way in harmony/balance between the entities
Impact, efficient use of money
FDC has been succeful to stop some plans that should have made bad use of money, either by unprofessional operations or by persuing goals outside the scope the movements goals.
Besides this stop of bad spending, FDC can not say it has secured efficent use of money or that is has been used for optimal impact. The actal activites and operation is (still) mainly dependant on the the creativty and professionslism in the boards and people working in the different entities.
WMF and WMDE
They both have been too big to fit into the process and FDC has not truly been allowed to handle WMF. I would like to see a thorough study on what these two entities scope ought to be and what type of organisational set up would be appropriate in these two cases. WMF and WMDE should anyway be part of the FDC process. (I believe the scope is much easier for the other entities where focus is outreach, community support and a limited effort in software development)
A body or "mechanism"
FDC has worked very well in its role during deliberation meetings, but has worked much less well in between with issues not directly related to the two yearly sessions. Should FDC be limited to being a mechanism or should it have the aim to be a body that can be operative between sessions? Has the experience of FDC members to visit entities been something good to be pursued further or should it be left to staff personell? How much time and effort can be expected to be spend by the volunteers in FDC?
Recruitment process to FDC
To have five every second year (selected by community) and four in between (selected by the Board) is too many at each time making the selection process too complex and risking disruptions in the operations of FDC