IRC office hours/Office hours 2012-07-25-2

Philippe: OK, i'm going to turn on logging now….  ***** BEGIN LOG ******, Serious announcer voice.
[4:04pm] Asaf_WMF: Alright, settle down! 
[4:04pm] Risker: that's no doubt how you retain your youthful figure, jorm
[4:04pm] Philippe: Thanks for coming, everyone.
[4:04pm] Divya_TBQ joined the chat room.
[4:04pm] ori-l-away is now known as ori-l.
[4:05pm] Philippe: This is the second of two IRC office hours sessions that are dedicated to the criteria for the funds dissemination committee.
[4:05pm] SPQRobin joined the chat room.
[4:05pm] Risker: Philippe, were the minutes of the first session posted yet?
[4:05pm] bnewstead joined the chat room.
[4:05pm] Philippe: And I suppose it makes sense if we ask Garfield to say a few words, unless one of the rest of you motley lot wants to.
[4:05pm] Philippe: Risker, yes, they went up this morning, on Meta.
[4:05pm] bnewstead was granted voice by you.
[4:05pm] Gbyrd was granted voice by you.
[4:06pm] Asaf_WMF was granted voice by you.
[4:06pm] Anasuya: Risker:
[4:06pm] Anasuya was granted voice by you.
[4:06pm] Gbyrd: Thank you joining us.  Our goal for this meeting is to answer your questions on the F
[4:06pm] Anasuya: Risker: oops sorry, wrong link
[4:06pm] Asaf_WMF:
[4:06pm] Gbyrd: FDC eligibility process and other FDC qustions.
[4:06pm] Risker: both good links
[4:06pm] Asaf_WMF: Risker: that link is the transcript.
[4:07pm] Philippe: (BTw, side note to welcome Anasuya, for her second office hours ever - and second today - our new director of Global Learning and Grantmaking, or some combination of those words)
[4:07pm] Anasuya: And the other one the eligibility status of all chapters/entities currently
[4:07pm] Asaf_WMF: Philippe: you got it right this time! 
[4:07pm] Anasuya: And thanks, Philippe 
[4:07pm] Philippe: Yay
[4:08pm] Hubertl joined the chat room.
[4:08pm] preilly joined the chat room.
[4:08pm] Philippe: So, perhaps it makes sense to see what questions are out there?
[4:08pm] Hubertl: hi all
[4:09pm] Philippe: Anyone have one that they can't wait to ask?  Otherwise, Asaf has prepared a talent piece, ala "Eurovision", I believe.
[4:10pm] Asaf_WMF: Clearly, the FDC is not confusing at all! 
[4:10pm] Philippe: OK, while Asaf goes and tunes his ukelele……
[4:10pm] Hubertl: are we wating for someone?
[4:10pm] Philippe: Only questions 
[4:10pm] Philippe: We have most everyone here, and the staff is ready to answer any questions that you might have.
[4:10pm] Risker: Q: at this point there are 2 eligible entities, 16 that are eligible pending some paperwork, and a whole pile that are in "not eligible" status. How does that latter group progress to eligibility?
[4:10pm] • heatherw waves (with no questions)
[4:10pm] Philippe: OK, there we go.  Knew we could count on you, Risker.
[4:10pm] ori-l is now known as ori-l-away.
[4:11pm] Asaf_WMF: (Barry is responding)
[4:12pm] Philippe: I feel iike it needs background music.
[4:12pm] abartov_ joined the chat room.
[4:12pm] Philippe: If there are other questions, please shout 'em out.
[4:12pm] Philippe: I'll keep a list.
[4:12pm] Hubertl: I´am elected member of the german FDC (CPB), an I wonder how it should work, that 7 members of FDC could manage a budget of 10 M Dollar.
[4:12pm] Risker: I do have another question that someone else could start working on
[4:12pm] bnewstead: Hi RIsker:  The chapters who are not eligible haven't had sufficient experience with activities, managing funds and reporting on those activities. To progress to "eligible" these entities would probably want to get some grants under their belt.
[4:12pm] Asaf_WMF: (ignore abartov_ -- I'm the real deal!)
[4:13pm] jayvdb joined the chat room.
[4:13pm] Risker: Q: How does the grants advisory committee get funded, and who is approving those grants?
[4:13pm] Risker: and part II, and how do they relate to the FDC?
[4:13pm] aude: office hours 
[4:13pm] Philippe: Hubertl is next, wondering how 7 memers of FDC could manage a 10M dollar budget.  Followed by Risker, with How does the grants advisory committee get funded, and who is approving those grants?, and how do they relate to the FDC?
[4:14pm] Asaf_WMF: Risker: The GAC works for free!   The Wikimedia Grants program, which is what you meant, is part of the WMF's non-core budget, and thus would be part of the WMF's proposal to the FDC.
[4:14pm] BirgitteSB: Q: Where are the documents listed as lacking in the eligibility gaps column defined?
[4:14pm] bnewstead: Risker: Wikimedia's grants program which the Grants Advisory Committee advises will have its budget approved in the FDC process as part of the WMF non-core budget.
[4:14pm] Hubertl: the german budget is 250K Euro, and we have about 30 Project to improve
[4:16pm] Philippe: So Hubertl, just to clarify, youre worried that there is too much work for those people? And they won't be able to manage that budget?
[4:16pm] Asaf_WMF: (Garfield is responding to Hubertl)
[4:16pm] Hubertl: yes
[4:16pm] Philippe: Thanks for the clarification 
[4:16pm] Gbyrd: Hubertl: The FDC will be reviewing only between 10 and 20 funding proposals and they will have staff support.
[4:17pm] poli_: It is still a lot
[4:17pm] Anasuya: BirgitteSB: The definitions are below the eligibility status table.
[4:17pm] Hubertl: that means, every projekt will have minimum 500k $
[4:17pm] Asaf_WMF: Hubertl: not at all, that's just the average. 
[4:18pm] KTC: i would imagine WMF asking for and getting a bigger chunk than most
[4:18pm] Gbyrd: Hubertl: Additional note - this will be done over two funding cycles.
[4:18pm] Hubertl: I can´t believe it, to check a projekt in this size, it need mor manpower (womenpower)
[4:18pm] jayvdb: will there be a minimum budget size for FDC funding?
[4:18pm] Asaf_WMF: Hubertl: you're thinking about reviewing specific project plans, but the FDC will be reviewing at a higher level -- annual plans.  Individual project plan evaluations would be up to those entities' governing structures, boards and executives.
[4:18pm] bnewstead: Hubertl: On average, yes but there are a few very big ones...WMF's non-core, WMDE, WMUK, WMFR. That is a significant part of the total in the short term.
[4:19pm] Anasuya: Jayvdb: No, there won't
[4:19pm] Philippe: Anasuya: can you talk about what the criteria is to qualify to request money, maybe?
[4:19pm] Hubertl: I´am a little sceptic...
[4:20pm] mabdul|busy joined the chat room.
[4:20pm] Tiptoety is now known as Tiptoety|away.
[4:20pm] MelBee left the chat room. (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
[4:21pm] BirgitteSB: Could the WMF provide sample documents using WMF info of what is require
[4:21pm] BirgitteSB: For the document?
[4:21pm] • aude dislikes firm criteria for qualifying and sometimes things can be more nuanced
[4:21pm] Hubertl: As far as I understand, even smaller project should be proved by FDC
[4:21pm] Anasuya: (Garfield is responding to the criteria Q, Philippe)
[4:22pm] BirgitteSB: The WMF annual report and such seems to have extra PR bits
[4:22pm] Philippe: Great 
[4:22pm] jayvdb: who decides whether the chapter/org has met the eligibility criteria?
[4:22pm] Asaf_WMF: (Barry is responding to aude)
[4:22pm] Gbyrd: Philippe: The criteria to qualify to request money will depend on if an entity wants money from the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.  For the FDC process they will need to meet the requirements of having successfully completing grants and reporting on the outcomes.  In addition, they need to be in compliance with their chapter agreement.
[4:22pm] Philippe: Two outstanding then, could we provide sample documents, and who decides if an org meets eligibility.
[4:23pm] mabdul|busy: office hour?
[4:23pm] mabdul left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
[4:23pm] KTC: mabdul|busy, yes
[4:23pm] Asaf_WMF: (Garfield is answering jayvdb)
[4:23pm] Anasuya: BirgitteSB: we're working on a FDC portal  - which will be a hub for all things FDC - and that will include a sample proposal. To be launched August 1!
[4:23pm] bnewstead: Aude: There is flip side to loose criteria from what I have experiened. When we soften the criteria, we get criticism for not having firm criteria and sticking to it.
[4:23pm] mabdul|busy: KTC: short summary: since when about what?
[4:23pm] mabdul|busy: FDC ahh
[4:24pm] KTC: ~20 minutes
[4:24pm] aude: bnewstead: criticism shouldn't be a blocker
[4:24pm] Gbyrd: jayvdb:  The WMF business office, on behalf of the FDC, will determine which entities qualify to submit funding request to the FDC based on the eligibility requirements.
[4:24pm] aude: there always are some exceptions
[4:24pm] harej joined the chat room.
[4:24pm] Philippe: So the only outstanding question is whether the WMF will provide sample documents as an example.
[4:25pm] Asaf_WMF: Philippe: Anasuya said the FDC portal will include a sample.
[4:25pm] harej: I get home from work and I get to make it to the *other* FDC chat? Awesome!!!
[4:25pm] Philippe: Oh good
[4:25pm] Philippe: thanks, Asaf
[4:25pm] Philippe: harej: nothing more exciting than talking about FDC twice in the same day.
[4:25pm] jayvdb: Gbyrd, so WMF and a chapter could be going head to head re their eligibility status, in which the difference of opinion could be whether or not a report is sufficiently detailed
[4:26pm] bnewstead: aude: Let me make a finer point on this. As we have a lot more organizations to work with, it is difficult to scale up one-on-one arrangements. It is also difficult for entities to know where the standards are that they need to meet. Firm standards help in this regard.
[4:26pm] Gbyrd: jayvb:  In addition, I am available to work with chapters on assisting them on questions on their eligibility status.
[4:26pm] jayvdb: the FDC or board does not have a say ?
[4:26pm] BirgitteSB: Anasuya: Sample proposals is also nice.  But I was thinking of sample annual report financial reports.  The WMF seems to do much PR and extra stuff in the normal ones. I would be interested to see a more minimal version that chapters could use as a template.
[4:26pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: also, we made the criteria fact-based, so they can be objectively verified by anyone.  Specifically, WMF staff has done the legwork, but anyone is welcome to double-check.
[4:26pm] mabdul|busy: to any WMF: I know it was discussed: but how do 'you' place that much money (of fundings) in short term err how is it called *looking up*assets?
[4:26pm] mabdul|busy: I mean you can't do long term plans or?
[4:27pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, they are not fact based; there is no specification for what must be in some of the reports required
[4:27pm] abartov_ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[4:27pm] jayvdb: I am referring to the "YES, If" eligible orgs
[4:27pm] thekaryn_ joined the chat room.
[4:27pm] aude: bnewstead: wouldn't something like successfully organizing wikimania = successfully completing a grant?
[4:28pm] jayvdb: that IF is dependent on the org meeting criteria, and there are a lot of orgs in that category
[4:28pm] aude: we didn't exactly get what you'd call a grant, but got some support
[4:28pm] Gbyrd: BrigitteSB:  I will be working on providing a template for financial reporting.
[4:28pm] aude: and harej did a fantastic job of accounting
[4:28pm] Anasuya: BirgitteSB: Garfield is working on a summary financial template - that will be helpful to those whose financials are not in English - but it may well be useful for everyone. Due Aug 1.
[4:28pm] harej: aude, you don't know that yet.
[4:28pm] jayvdb: which means there is  lot of work yet to be done to evaluate the chapters compliance
[4:28pm] thekaryn left the chat room. (Read error: Operation timed out)
[4:28pm] thekaryn_ is now known as thekaryn.
[4:28pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: A financial report is, despite local/national differences, a fairly well-understood thing.  Grant reports are practically guaranteed to be accepted, as long as there's no concern about the actual spending.
[4:28pm] harej: Gbyrd: is that template called "generally accepted accounting standards" by any chance?
[4:29pm] Gbyrd: harej: The template is not published yet.
[4:29pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, I agree; the financial report needs to be accepted by the local government, which makes it fact-based
[4:29pm] mabdul|busy: heh
[4:30pm] jayvdb: the other eligibility requirements are not.
[4:30pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: it is a matter of fact whether or not a grant report was accepted by WMF.
[4:31pm] harej: Earlier I asked if the FDC can be used to get an organization from low-infrastructure to high-infrastructure, and was told that the FDC doesn't nurture organizations into maturity. I understand that the FDC can't make up for the lack of human resources in a chapter, but FDC money can help build on those resources to bring an organization to maturity (and oodles of administrative expenses). Can a chapter rely on FDC funding for admin
[4:31pm] harej: expenses, and at what point does the FDC tell a chapter to look elsewhere?
[4:31pm] abartov_ joined the chat room.
[4:31pm] Anasuya: Mabdul: Could you explain your question about 'looking up' assets? Thanks
[4:31pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, " Grant reports are practically guaranteed to be accepted, as long as there's no concern about the actual spending." - this is what I mean; who can say the grant report isnt accepted (you?) and does the chapter have a right to appeal that decision?
[4:31pm] harej: Also, appears I mixed up Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. My apologies.
[4:31pm] Philippe: So, two questions out there:  Mabdul on assets, and harej on whether a chapter rcan ely on FDC funding for admin
[4:31pm] Philippe: expenses, and at what point does the FDC tell a chapter to look elsewhere?
[4:32pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: we actually _mark_ reports as accepted. There's a category on Meta etc.
[4:32pm] bnewstead: aude: If WIkimedia DC wraps up Wikimania and their other grant, and prepares an annual report with financials, I'd imagine they would meet the criteria for the next round.
[4:32pm] ori-l-away is now known as ori-l.
[4:32pm] aude: bnewstead: ok
[4:32pm] mabdul|busy: Anasuya: the funds have to be assets for a very short time (up to a year), which is problematic because many assets are normally lasting - say - 5 years or more
[4:33pm] aude: in the interim, we need help inthe fall.... maybe more than a part time person
[4:33pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, nod. and what about appeal mechanisms?  sorry if this is already documented somewhere.
[4:33pm] Anasuya: Harej: The Wikimedia Grants Program is the place to go for this. Just to be clear, the difference between the FDC process and the Wikimedia Grants Program - is that the first is for eligible entities (right now it may be only chapters, but that does not preclude other entities in the future),  in order to support their annual plans and full time staff positions. The Wikimedia Grants Program- is for project funding and can include part time staf
[4:33pm] aude: as we grow and manage our partnerships and outreach initiatives, and
[4:33pm] bnewstead: aude: I suggest that conversation shift to an offline discussion with Asaf about the Wikimedia grants program.
[4:34pm] aude: bnewstead: ok
[4:34pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: (one sec)
[4:34pm] harej: Anasuya: I am talking precisely about supporting annual plans and full-time staff positions. Part of that is administration.
[4:35pm] Philippe: so that leaves us with mabdul|busy's question about assets, and how WMF manages with so much in short term holdings, I believe.
[4:35pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: so there's no formal process.  As a matter of fact, this seems to be a yet-to-happen edge case, but I agree that _in_ such a case, there should be some recourse.
[4:35pm] awjr_mtg left the chat room. (Quit: Leaving.)
[4:35pm] Tiptoety|away is now known as Tiptoety.
[4:35pm] ori-l is now known as ori-l-away.
[4:35pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, it has happened.
[4:35pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: note, though, that we don't just reject a report with "nah" -- we say exactly what's missing, unclear, or concerning.  And that can generally be fixed, unless there is in fact a mis-spending of funds. 
[4:36pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: an appeal?
[4:36pm] Gbyrd: mabdul|busy: We do not anticipate FDC funding providing funding for assets as the focus is annual program plans.
[4:36pm] ori-l-away is now known as ori-l.
[4:36pm] BirgitteSB: Asaf jayvdb is asking about PROCESS not cases. It is very, very, very important that proceeds is defined long before there is ever a case question!
[4:36pm] BirgitteSB: Proceeds-> process
[4:36pm] jayvdb: there are grant reports which have been rejected by WMF and they should have an appeal process
[4:36pm] Philippe: Gbyrd: I think mabdul is asking what the WMF's investment holding strategy is…. are we keeping extra in short term assets for this funding, and ignoring long term holdings, for isntance?
[4:37pm] Philippe: Or maybe I'm wrong 
[4:37pm] mabdul|busy: Philippe: yes, thanks. I still trying to keep up the discussion since it is rather fast for me that night
[4:37pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: I'm aware of just one report currently not accepted by WMF, and there's ongoing dialogue about it.  What I said didn't happen yet is a request to appeal.
[4:38pm] harej: Ooh, I wonder what case that is.
[4:39pm] Gbyrd: Philippe: WMF does not have an endowment and our current investment policy does not allow for holding long term investments.  Currently the plan is the fund annual program plans with funding from the annual fundraiser.
[4:39pm] Philippe: mabdul|busy: does that answer your question? 
[4:39pm] Philippe: Thanks, Gbyrd
[4:39pm] Hubertl: Q: What is the budget for the WMF grant program? And how does the desicion process work - i.e. an international project, which can´t be granted by one chapter?
[4:40pm] mabdul|busy: Philippe: somehow: yes
[4:40pm] jayvdb: there are a bunch of reports that are over six months old with no WMF feedback.
[4:40pm] harej: Anasuya: How do you define "support"? 25% 50% 100%?
[4:40pm] Asaf_WMF: (Garfield is responding to Hubertl)
[4:40pm] Philippe: OK, I'm sure that if you have a followup, you can send it to Garfield by email without a time crunch 
[4:41pm] mabdul|busy: Gbyrd: so you planing for every year from zero trying to get enough money as possible within a year? (do i understand that correctly so?)
[4:41pm] Gbyrd: Hubertl: The current budget for the Wikimedia Grants program is proposed for $500,000.
[4:41pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: correct, we still have a backlog, but do note none of those reports invalidated anyone from eligibility.
[4:42pm] Anasuya: Harej: That will be up to the FDC to decide
[4:42pm] Philippe: Outstanding questions:  Hurlbert on the full budget and decision making; harej's follow up to Anasuya, and mabdul's followup on budgeting process.
[4:42pm] Hubertl: Gbyrd: thank you
[4:42pm] BirgitteSB: If WMF doesn't arrange for an appeal process before it is needed, by default it will end up being an appeal to WMF board.  by human nature it will end up being an appeal to the most likely sympathetic board member.  And it seems very unlikely such a case would end just for anyone.
[4:42pm] Anasuya: Philippe: responded to harej. 
[4:42pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, I dont follow you.  The eligibility round 1 page says "Grants completed by 30 June 2012 are counted toward eligibility in the 2012 FDC process. Grant reports need to be completed and accepted by October 1st for the entity to be eligible if all other criteria are adequately met."
[4:43pm] Philippe: Thanks, Anasuya   Long day
[4:43pm] Risker: Related to Birgitte's question: Will the ombudsman have a role in appeals related to eligibility, as well as appeals related to FDC decisions?
[4:43pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: once again -- NO chapter is ineligible _because of an unreviewed grant report_.
[4:43pm] jayvdb: which means that reports pending WMF feedback are a very large concern for chapters
[4:43pm] Philippe: Let's be clear that Risker's question relates to the FDC's ombdusman, not the commission by the same name.
[4:43pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, but you could review and reject a report it in Sept.
[4:43pm] poli_ left the chat room. (Quit: Page closed)
[4:44pm] jayvdb: which will send the chapter into panic mode
[4:44pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: but yes, now that grant reports have this role in FDC eligibility, catching up on that backlog is a high priority, and you can expect it to disappear before the first round of FDC applications are due.  Once again, it does _not_ affect eligibility this round.
[4:44pm] mabdul|busy: Philippe: would you mind to be some minutes longer online for chatting about dewn?
[4:45pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: yet again: no -- those grant that have reports, even if they're still in the "under review" category, were counting as qualifying for the purposes of this eligibility round.
[4:45pm] Philippe: mabdul|busy: Unfortunately, I have a meeting immediately after this, but I'd be happy to arrange a time with you if you send me an email.
[4:46pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, I do not understand "Once again, it does _not_ affect eligibility this round." - the eligibility table has "YES, IF" entries with "Grant reports" listed as a requirement
[4:47pm] mabdul|busy: Philippe: yeah, my problem is that i doubt that I will be able to 'pack this into an email' to explain the probems - simply because of my language barrier... but if you want, I will try to send you mail  (my last week was with some stress so i will write it in this one  )
[4:47pm] Philippe: mabdul, jsut send me an email with a proposed meeting time or two, and we'll do it on IRC 
[4:47pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: yes.  Each of those YES IFs are due to _missing_ grant reports, or (in one case) a grant report that has already been NOT accepted.  *None* are due to possibly-not-accepted-but-already-submitted reports.  I hope that clarifies it?
[4:47pm] mabdul|busy: ok, will do
[4:47pm] BirgitteSB: Asaf_WMF: Are the reviewed vs unreviewed grants reports chronological, or any there any room for a perception of selective non-review? (not that I would ever choose malice over disorganization in the later case, but historically. . . .)
[4:48pm] Anasuya: Risker: the criteria were decided - after community input - by the Board. If there are concerns around meeting the criteria gaps, then staff will work with the entity to change the status. So as of now, it's a staff decision.
[4:48pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, please try to understand.  the "under review" category is a massive risk for chapters - you could reject a report in September, which will send a chapter into ineligible status without much time to rectify the situation
[4:48pm] Philippe: Anasuya: you're speaking specifically of eligibility there?  RIsker asked about FDC decisions, as well.
[4:49pm] BirgitteSB: Nevermind caught up with reading!
[4:49pm] jayvdb: if someone could tell me which WMF grant reports WMAU needs to submit, that would be handy 
[4:50pm] IShadowed_ left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
[4:50pm] Anasuya: Sorry, Risker! The FDC process complaints are handled by the Ombudsperson, and complaints related to any recommendation are handled by the two non-voting observers from the Board, on the FDC
[4:50pm] Danny_B|backup: jayvdb: any grant which is missing /report page i guess
[4:50pm] laural: Risker: Detail on the complaints submission process is here:
[4:50pm] BirgitteSB: Jayvd: I think Asaf is saying merely submitting the grant report is qualifying for this round because of the backlog, but the ideal plan is for acceptance to be qualifying instead of submission
[4:50pm] mabdul|busy: for the case that I ask questions which were answered somewhere or today: how determine the FDC which project needs more money than the other?
[4:50pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: Yes, if a YES IF entity that has a grant report missing catches up and now reports on the grant, but (for example) can't account for all the money -- we won't be able to accept that report, and that entity may not be eligible this round.
[4:51pm] Philippe: So mabdul is wondering what criteria will be used to determine levels of funding, I believe, and I don't see any other outstnading questions.
[4:51pm] Asaf_WMF: BirgitteSB: not quite.  I said none of the reports _already submitted_ have disqualified entities, except for one (in discussion).  Reports that are _entirely missing_ could still, as jayvdb correctly notes, be not accepted.
[4:52pm] mabdul|busy: Philippe: correct 
[4:52pm] jayvdb: is full of unsuccessful grants and grants from 2009 which we returned the money for
[4:52pm] • Danny_B|backup was thinking since the morning about the annual period of eligibility - what was the reason for year? it is quite long, any chance it could be shortened?
[4:52pm] Risker: Anasuya and Laural, so the ombudsman is essentially filling the "process review" role initially scoped out for the first year of the Advisory Group?
[4:53pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: and at least one about which you just haven't reported at all...
[4:53pm] bnewstead: mabdul|busy: This is fundamentally the role of the FDC. There are criteria for review of plans, but they need to use their judgment to allocate the funds. This is why it is an important role.
[4:53pm] Philippe: For the record, folks, if we don't get to all the questions (lucky Asaf, saved from the ukelele performance), i'm making a list and we'll follow up.
[4:54pm] mabdul|busy: bnewstead: so only "organzising" the funds? correct?
[4:54pm] Philippe: Outstanding questions are Dannyb on why a year's eligibility period, and Risker's followup to Anasuya and Laura
[4:55pm] BirgitteSB: Asaf I find that a very risky way to go about it.
[4:55pm] Asaf_WMF: Danny_B: I think this was a mistake this morning: eligibility is re-calculated per round (i.e. twice a year), not once a year.
[4:55pm] bnewstead: mabdul|busy: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "organizing"
[4:55pm] Danny_B|backup: the original grant system was on annual basis and turned to be on rather continuous one
[4:56pm] Danny_B|backup: ah, ok, half a year sounds reasonable. one year is way so long period
[4:56pm] jayvdb: Asaf_WMF, I am not aware of any prior concerns from WMF that we had not provided adequate reports.  It comes as a shock that WMF is now complaining about grants from 2009
[4:56pm] Asaf_WMF: BirgitteSB: what's a very risky way to go about it?
[4:56pm] Anasuya: Risker: The 'process review' is different - it's the review of all the operational pieces going into setting up the FDC and its work through the year, so it's a broader review. The Ombudsperson is specifically taking in complaints from those sending proposals to the FDC who might have concerns about the process, in any way.
[4:56pm] Danny_B|backup: could you guys please clarify this eligibility calculation period somewhere? thank you
[4:56pm] BirgitteSB: Review can be perceived as politically motivated.
[4:56pm] jvandavier left the chat room. (Quit: jvandavier)
[4:56pm] Danny_B|backup: maybe in that faq comparison page i mentioned earlier today
[4:57pm] Philippe: OK, at this point, we should begin to wrap up because I think someone has the room after us.  If you have further questions and you want them answered, send them to any of the present staff members, or directly to me…
[4:57pm] mabdul|busy: bnewstead: simplify: 'to asset the money' and organzice the funds so that they are within a year free for new funds or  projects (as i said: simplified; except the new chapters problem)
[4:57pm] Philippe: and I'll get them to the relevant staff
[4:57pm] Hubertl left the chat room. (Quit: ChatZilla [Firefox 14.0.1/20120713134347])
[4:57pm] Risker: Anasuya, that doesn't really jive with the description on the framework
[4:58pm] Asaf_WMF: jayvdb: well, missing grant reports well always a compliance issue, but there was little to no enforcement from WMF until recently.  Now that it was decided that compliance is a criterion for FDC eligibility, it becomes our job to review and surface these old non-compliance issues.  WMAU could have fixed this at any point; certainly after the FDC criteria were known and before we published our eligibility findings.  Anyho
[4:58pm] bnewstead: BirgitteSB: Yes anything can be viewed as politically motivated, but it not necessarily the case. We all have a responsibility to ensure that funds are used as intended and we report to the community effectively.
[4:59pm] Danny_B|backup: the yes-if group members can still make it to the first round or not at all?
[4:59pm] Danny_B|backup: Asaf_WMF: you have been cut away, it ends with "findings.  Anyho"
[4:59pm] Asaf_WMF: BirgitteSB: grant report reviews are very matter-of-fact.  We want to see how the funds were used, and look at impact vs. stated goals.  Note that the work funded by the grant does not necessarily have to be a stellar success!  A report about a failed project is just as acceptable, as long as we know how the money was used etc.
[4:59pm] laural: Danny_B: Going forward, the eligibility review period will be between june 1 and july 15 for round 1 funding and between november 1 and Dec 15 for Round 2.
[5:00pm] Danny_B|backup: that's shorter and longer half of the year 
[5:00pm] Asaf_WMF: BirgitteSB: also, remember grant reports, _and_ the reviews thereof, are all public, on Meta.
[5:00pm] Philippe: OK, and on that note, folks, we need to break it up.  I'll put a log on meta, and we'll get these last few qestions over there.
[5:00pm] Anasuya: Risker: Here's what I see re the Advisory Group in the framework - will you let me know what you mean? "Once the inaugural FDC is up and running, the Advisory Group’s  formal role will be suspended. However, its members will continue to  closely observe the process, and to participate in it as community  members as they see fit. The Advisory Group will return in a formal capacity at two points before disbanding in September of 2014:    1. Af
[5:00pm] bnewstead: BirgitteSB: I'll add that all of the reports are public (or should be) and are available for anyone to look at. This is a check on an overly political approach.
[5:00pm] BirgitteSB: I agree the reviews are matter-of-fact, but they are not currently uniform. I mean people that don't draw any attention will probably sit in the backlog. People that make a fuss will probably sit in the backlog. When the former is plucked from the backlog and problems found no one notices.  When the latter is plucked from the backlog and problems found your motivations are publicly attacked.  You are setting yourself up for trouble.
[5:01pm] Asaf_WMF: Danny_B: right, the end of that line was "findings. Anyhow, it's not too late -- submit those missing reports and you should be fine."
[5:01pm] Philippe: OK, I'd like to thank everyone for coming 
[5:01pm] bnewstead: Thanks everyone.  Good questions!