Grants:APG/Appeals regarding FDC process/2012-2013 round1

Question about donors, donations and allocations


Regarding FDC portal/2012/FDC members [1] the question was posed at Talk:FDC portal/2012/FDC members#Question about donors, donations and allocations:

Hi, could someone please clarify where the bulk of the $10 million to be distributed comes from? Presumably it's mostly from donors in the United States. How many donors really donate/d from Poland or India or Bangladesh? If so, why is there only one board member from the USA who will help make decisions about the allocations? The national origins of the board members should at least roughly reflect where the largest proportions of donations to this fund are coming from. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi IZAK! Thank you for your question. I will forward it, and I will get back to you as soon as I have feedback. Lusitana (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi IZAK. I will summarize here the feedback I received from the WMF fundraising team (concerning the origin of the funds), and the WMF Board of Trustees representatives on the FDC (concerning the national origins of the FDC members).

The largest sum of donations comes indeed from the US (over $20 million in 2011-12). So that you have an idea, India has $ 371 thousand and Poland has over $ 104 thousand.

The concern, when the Board selected the FDC members, was to have a regional balance in the committee. The ideal composition would have representatives of every region in the world. This was clearly not possible, but the FDC has different perspectives, since there are not two members from the same country, and diversity is important for the movement.

In tune with the Wikimedia movement fundament, the one that gives the biggest donation should not have the strongest voice deciding where the funds should be allocated. The movement may choose to spend it where it is more needed. This is also the principle when you donate knowledge to the projects, you do not decide where it is used, you share it to the whole world. Also, it is the Board of Trustees that decides the funds allocations in the end.

I hope I was able to concey the message, and that it was helpful. Lusitana (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Any reply to a published criticism?


I have added to the Wikimedia Foundation article a criticism, that was published by The Register on 20 December 2012, here. I'm interested in reading any reply to it. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So I don't have much to reply here with regards to the specific examples. The principle of the FDC is that they approve budgets (not line items) for the different entities that request them with a plan that matches the goals that we as a movement have. Part of this process will be an evaluation of the goals that were set and if they were achieved. I really have no insight into the effectiveness of the different activities of local chapters (and I would assume that the individual FDC members don't either). At the same time I think that the two examples are worth critically discussing for the movement as a whole, because these might be "proven" practices which the German chapter is building on. It would be my suggestion that this discussion is something that could take place on our mailing lists rather than by editing the article about the "Wikimedia Foundation" (which is not only the wrong forum but also the wrong organisation, because you are discussing the German chapter rather than Wikimedia Foundation).
One of the great things about our movement is the transparency of all the activities and associated budgets. I would invite you to take part in the discussion of the plans once the new round of the FDC gets underway. Jan-Bart (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge comment pages


Is this an appeal? Who knows. --Nemo 11:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to the question at the link. And no, that is not an appeal to the Ombudsperson regarding an FDC process. heather walls (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)