Hello members of the Funds Dissemination Advisory Group! I hope this finds you well, wherever you are, enjoying a lovely weekend. I wanted to share a draft version of the paragraphs for the FD Advisory Group in the FDC Annual Report which should be published next week. As a base, I used Richard's text from the summary of the call (thanks so much for writing it up, Richard!). From there, I added more text from the minutes of the meeting to add a bit more depth and context to share a bit more perspective in the report. I propose the text below as a draft for you to edit/correct/revise. I have also put it on the top of the minutes from the etherpad. [1] *Please make any suggestions and edits by end of day UTC Tuesday Sept 24,* so that we can move forward with this piece completed. If you use the etherpad, it would be ideal if you could note your initials by your comments so we can follow up with you if we have any questions about the content created. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. And thank you, Advisory Group, for your input and feedback on this section of the report! Warmly, Katy Love -- [1] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/bUK9d3SRUd * The Funds Dissemination Advisory Group [[LINK]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_… an important role for the first two years of the FDC’s existence. The Advisory Group helped to develop the FDC process, and now provides guidance and feedback to help refine the process. The Group is comprised of interested community members, current FDC grantees, external grantmakers, and WMF Board members. Two members of the Advisory Group joined the FDC, and they therefore resigned from the Advisory Group. As a whole, the Advisory Group felt that the FDC Year 1 Process Review [[ LINK<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/FDC_Process_Rev… accurately covered the current state of the FDC process. They strongly emphasized a need for increased communication between applicants and FDC staff. The Advisory Group noted that communication is the most challenging aspect of the relationship, as new and inexperienced entities have a difficult time meeting the requirements. The Advisory Group therefore recommended that the FDC staff work more closely with applicants, particularly the new applicants. The Advisory Group noted concern around the fact that smaller entities faced the same rigorous review treatment as larger entities, even when the smaller entities were all or mostly volunteer-run. They also noted that some entities may not be ready for annual plan grants with unrestricted funds. They recommended to the FDC staff to help to steer smaller (possibly less developed) entities to simpler Wikimedia grant programs, like the Project and Events grants program. Another concern is the lack of overall community involvement. One member noted that only the applicants seemed to be paying significant attention to the process. The Advisory Group noted many positive aspects of the FDC. First, they feel that the FDC Framework has been useful and well utilized as a foundational document for the process. In addition, they were impressed with the thoughtfulness of the FDC’s work and decisions. Furthermore, despite a range of personalities, all viewpoints were respected and recommendations are agreed jointly. Finally, they were also impressed with the maturity of the applicants from the first round, including those that were rejected from funding. * On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Katy Love &lt;klove(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: