http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC_Prop…
Hey folks,
This is just a quick note aimed at drawing your attention to the draft
proposal to the Board on the construction of the FDC. Bridgespan has been
doing some very good work at the URL above: it's worth you reading the
draft-in-progress if you haven't been.
The discussion is happening mostly on that talk page, although there are a
few bits and pieces of discussion happening elsewhere -- for example, on
the talk page of the notes related to my interview with Bridgespan.
I think the discusssion is good. A hald-dozen advisory group members have
been active there, as well as some community members who aren't on the
advisory group. What I've read has been very constructive and thoughtful,
and really useful in helping shape my own thinking.
To recap: I'm expected to send the Board the final proposal on or before 30
June. The proposal will be a version of what's currently on the meta page,
accompanied by draft documents that will be used to support the FDC process
--- documents such as the "letter of intent" form fund-seekers will be
asked to fill out, the criteria Wikimedia Foundation staff will use to
determine whether an entity is eligible for FDC funding, a draft funds
request template, the criteria Wikimedia Foundation staff will use to
determine whether a funding request is eligible for consideration by the
FDC, the evaluation grid the FDC will use to assess funding requests, a
commitment pledge FDC members will be asked to make before agreeing to
serve on the FDC, an "annual calendar" of deadlines and milestones for the
FDC process, a plan for assessing and course-correcting as the first 18
months of FDC work plays out, and so forth.
All the materials will be posted and refined on meta throughout the next
six weeks as they are developed, and will be presented to you for your
discussion and feedback at our meeting in San Francisco in June. That F2F
meeting, and your discussions on-wiki between now and 30 June, will be your
major initial contribution as advisory group members: my expectation is
that after that point, your role will shift more towards observing the
process as it plays out, and giving feedback throughout the 18-month
evaluation cycle.
Here's what you can do to help the process:
* Please read the talk pages and contribute to the discussions there are
you see fit. There are currently some particularly interesting
conversations happening around how FDC membership should be determined,
what the annual cycle should look like (particularly, how two funding
periods can be supported), and how community member feedback could be
incorporated into the funding request evaluation process. There are
probably other interesting discussions happening, but those are the ones I
remember off the top of my head. There are probably also areas that aren't
currently being discussed, that should be.
* I've put out an informal request on the meta page for people to nominate
candidates for the inaugural FDC, which I am expecting will likely be
appointed by the Board, perhaps with special support from this Advisory
Group. My guess is that the Board will vote on the proposal sometime around
mid-July, and we will want to have the FDC fully up-and-running by 1
October. That leaves only about 10 weeks for the Board to determine FDC
membership: that may sound like a lot, but it isn't really. I am assuming
that many people will be approached and need to decline, either because
they're not interested or are too busy. I am also guessing that some
desired characteristics will be easy to recruit for, and others more
difficult. Plus, potential members may have other entanglements, including
potential conflict-of-issue or perception-of-conflict, that will take time
to sort out. That's why I'm asking for nominations now: so that we don't
start from zero in mid-July. So, if you can help brainstorm potential names
on that wiki page, I think that would be useful for the Board.
* You have probably seen that a week ago, Bridgespan started a survey of
chapters that will potentially be requesting funds, here.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Chapter_Financ….
It's been publicized on meta, mailing lists, and I believe also by
individual e-mails to chapter heads. Bridgespan is hoping that chapters
will be able to fill out the survey by 25 May. To date, I think nobody has
filled it out yet. That's fine: obviously it'll take time for chapters to
gather the relevant information. But, if you are involved with a chapter,
or in close communication with a chapter regardless of personal
involvement, it might help if you could encourage people to get the survey
filled out. That'll give us information that'll help us design a process in
a way that meets the needs of fund-seekers.
I don't know if the archives of this list are yet public. On the assumption
they may not be, and in a spirit of transparency, I will likely post this
note to meta sometime this weekend -- or anybody else should feel free to
do it, if they're on meta before I am. And a heads-up for you all: I'll be
travelling (WikiGenero, in Buenos Aires) for six days, starting Tuesday
this week. That normally makes it harder for me to edit the wikis, since I
tend to be more e-mail active and less wiki-active when I'm travelling. So,
I'll aim to do some editing before I leave San Francisco Tuesday afternoon,
but my editing will likely be pretty light for the week following
Last thing: thanks for all your help in this process thus far, and thanks
in advance for the meetings we'll be having in June. The construction of
the FDC is a heavy lift, and we are definitely not going to get it right at
launch: it will need lots of fine-tuning as we go. But I'm excited by its
potential, and I'm happy with the shape it's taking so far.
CCing Asaf so he's in the loop: I'm not actually sure if he's on this list,
or not.
Thanks,
Sue
Hi.
As we discussed in our recent meetings, there is a desire to make this
mailing list a public mailing list. This is consistent with everyone's
interest to make these important discussions transparent and visible to our
wider community.
In order to make that change, we would like to inform you that all previous
communications on this mailing list and your email addresses will become
part of the newly-public mailing list archive. As a result, your data and
those communications will not be confidential and will be shared publicly.
If you do not agree to this, please notify Winifred Olliff via email at
wolliff(a)wikimedia.org, of your desire to opt-out and your name and
information will be removed from the mailing list prior to making it
public, after which we shall have to figure out a way to support your
participation without exposing your e-mail address.
If you don't mind the discussions being public but would like your e-mail
address to remain protected, please consider writing to Winifred with an
alternate e-mail address we can subscribe you with, and we will unsubscribe
your existing one and re-subscribe you with the new one.
Please opt-out by May 15, 2012; after that date, the list and its contents
will be made public.
Cheers,
Asaf
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
'Gday' to you all -
Thought I would jump in and test the new list. I presume it is for our
use.....
I would prefer to use it as a central copy (archive) of all messages is
kept for all see. Can be referenced, etc.
Maybe a short bio from each of us would be in order?
Regards, Richard
Sydney, Oz.
I suggest this list be used for conversations and temporary
communications and the Meta wiki be used for more permanent
collaborative document / policy / process creation.
I think both should be public so our community can see it....
I will add a link on Meta to the list archives.
Regards, Richard.
Hi all -
I think the recent teleconference went very well .... suggestions:
If we do it again I would ask people to identify themselves as they
start speaking. I had trouble distinguishing between speakers (sometimes).
I would also suggest only one meeting is necessary and would insure all
hear the same information. Two meetings was considerate of the
organizers but very expensive in terms of those who did it twice. I
think pick a time that is OK for the majority and those living on the
other side of the sphere will lose some sleep.
Thanks and regards, Richard.
Here is the promised bio:
Born London, UK; late 1946; Australian mother, American (USA) father.
School years in Los Angeles, except for two years in England.
Joined US Navy in 1967, retired in 1987. Electronics Technician trained
in Radar but spent entire career in the submarine service. Initial
speciality was inertial navigation (first computer was a Verdan see:
http://www.tendertale.com/tttj/tttj2-5.html and scan down to middle of
page). Next did ocean floor searching. Lastly at a command running the
Transit satellite system (precursor to GPS, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite) where I introduced the
command to the DDN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Data_Network
Managed to advance from Seaman Recruit to Lieutenant (Limited Duty
Officer, Electronics).
Along the way married a lovely young Australian lady - Susan. (1976)
My first Internet account was in about 1981 on a computer named trout at
NOSC in San Diego. I still have found memories of using rtfm.mit.edu to
look up all kinds for useful data: see http://rtfm.mit.edu/ . You might
be amazed or annoyed the MIT allows this, [see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM ] and has for almost 30 years to my
knowledge.
Along the way did a CS in computer science and a MS in Management.
Migrated to Australia in 1987 (see mother and wife above).
Worked for DEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation 1987 - 1992.
Then consulting / contracting computer support (mostly for small
businesses) for 15 years. Retired in 2010.
Was in Rotary Club of St. Ives for 14 years resigned in 2008; see:
http://xr.com/t65 (PDF, page 3 upper right). Hosted seven exchange
students in this period; attending the wedding on one in Belgium on 21
July.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardAmes and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ariconte (My edit
history on Wikipedia)
Recently decided to take up 'amateur radio' as a hobby. Member of WIA,
ARRL, MWRS, HADARC.....
Cheers, Richard.
I wonder if this is still moderated????
I think it is a better place to but email communication because it can
be made open to the public to read... and only members can post.
Private emails don't satisfy our goal to be open to the community at
large.
Regards, Richard.