Dear FDC Advisory Group members,
Thank you again for all of the time and thoughtfulness you brought to our
weekend working session in San Francisco and via video. From our
perspective, the meeting was a tremendous success, and I hope you feel that
it was an effective use of your time. If you’ve been following the
development of the FDC proposal and associated templates on Meta, you’ll
know that much of what we deliberated and discussed has made its way into
the draft proposal– so you truly have contributed to make this work better.
I wanted to highlight for you the immediate next steps for this process.
Bridgespan and the WMF team have be making adjustments to the FDC proposal.
Yesterday, we did a thorough simulated walk-through of the process and
refined a number of areas to address some process challenges that presented
themselves. On 29 June, Sue will submit her formal recommendation for the
Board of Trustees consideration. If you are able to, please review the
current draft proposal [1] and provide feedback on the talk page [2].
I’m glad that several of you will be at Wikimania (sadly I won't, but a
strong WMF contingent will), and I hope that there will be an opportunity
there for those who have volunteered to hold an information/discussion
session on the FDC process, as I’m sure many who are attending will be
curious about it. Please let me know if there is anything you need from us
to support you in preparing for this.
Finally, we had tentatively discussed having two more Advisory Group
teleconference calls, one in mid-July and one in mid-August. It’s my sense,
at this point, that it would be best for us to continue to engage instead,
on Meta, where others can participate in the conversation. The logistics of
conference calls makes it difficult to have a quality discussion.
Bridgespan may reach out to some of you regarding specific ares we'd like
your advice. Beyond that, we don’t think we need to schedule another group
meeting at this time. Please do let me know if you have questions on this
or would suggest otherwise.
I look forward to our continued work together to develop this process, and
appreciate all of the contributions you have made thus far.
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC_Prop…
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC…
Best,
Barry
--
Barry Newstead
Chief Global Development Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
Donate to Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
I think the Etherpad record of our meeting is a valuable resource and
should be reserved.
The 'on web ' version has line numbers and contributor colours which
make it easier to refer too. See
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/Notes-20and-20discussion-20for-20Advisory-20G…
Can this version be write locked so none of us alter it????
Regards, Richard.
Dear Advisory Group,
We are looking forward to seeing you in San Francisco this coming weekend! Our meeting will be held at the Wikimedia Foundation offices and starts on Saturday at 9:30, with breakfast at 9:00.
We've outlined a detailed agenda of the weekend here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_G…
In advance of the meeting, we hope you do several things to prepare for our conversation:
1. Read the full draft of the FDC recommendation being drafted on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC_Prop…
2. If you have time, read the additional input materials that have been developed in support of this work:
* Drafts of key templates to support the recommendation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Templates
* The talk page discussion of the recommendation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC…
* Notes and insights from interviews: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Additional_Inf…
* Notes and insights from benchmark interviews: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Benchmarking_a…
* Financial data and responses from the chapter finance survey: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Key_financial_…
3. Provide your insights on the key issues left to discuss by answering Sue's three questions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Draft_FDC…
4. Bring a Wikimedia-related item (a story, an article, a photo, etc.) to share in opening exercise
Please set aside several hours to prepare. The objective of our meeting is to provide input to Sue to solidify and finalize the FDC recommendation to the Board at the end of June. The more prepared and up-to-date everyone is on the recommendation that has been drafted and the input that has informed this work, the deeper the conversation we have on the remaining issues to be discussed.
We're excited to see you! Please don't hesitate to reach out with questions in the meantime.
All the best,
Libbie
Libbie Landles
Manager
The Bridgespan Group
465 California St., 11th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94960
Phone:415.627.4585
libbie.landles(a)bridgespan.org
www.bridgespan.org
Bridgespan's free newsletters offer topics and tools for leaders in nonprofits and philanthropy. www.bridgespan.org/subscriptions
___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of the Bridgespan Group ("Bridgespan") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bridgespan shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bridgespan. When addressed to Bridgespan clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
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.