Hello again FD Advisory Group,
It was wonderful to speak with you all last week and hear your perspectives
on the progress of the FDC. Thank you, again, to Richard, for both
co-facilitating the call and for providing a good summary of the meeting,
too.
At this point, as mentioned before, we'd like to suggest that the Advisory
Group share some perspective on the first year of the FDC's existence
through some brief inputs for the annual FDC report.
Would one of you be willing to take what Richard has started with the
meeting summary and turn it into a few paragraphs for the AG's input to the
FDC report? Anasuya posed two questions that could be a useful starting
point for your reflection:
* Is the FDC proceeding in the right direction for the movement, both in
terms of process as well as building up learning around impact?
* Are there critical challenges or gaps that the FDC should be mindful
about for the coming year?
Kindly let me know if one of you is able and interested to lead this
effort. We are hoping to have a few paragraphs in the next few days to get
input from the other AG members to then include in the FDC Annual Report.
Of course, Anasuya and I would be happy to support you.
Many thanks!
Katy
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Pavel Richter
<pavel.richter(a)wikimedia.de>wrote;wrote:
+1
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Pavel Richter
Vorstand
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tel.: +49 - 30 - 219 158 260
Twitter: @pavel
2013/7/11 Richard Ames <richard(a)ames.id.au>
Funds Distribution Comittee (FDC) Advisory Group (AG) teleconference of
11 July 2013
The group met to review the FDC process to date; the FDC AG members
present were Richard, Osmar, Pavel, Kathy, Jan-Bart. Wikimedia Foundation
(WMF) FDC staff present were Katy, Winifred, Anasuya. An etherpad summary
of the discussion is at [1].
The FDC Year 1 Process Review, 2012-13 [2] formed the basis of the
discussion and the group felt the survey covered the current state of the
FDC effort correctly. There was universal agreement regarding
communication between applicants and foundation staff - that this is the
most challenging aspect of the relationship; new and inexperienced entities
have a difficult time meeting the requirements and communication is the
solution. Steering smaller (possibly less mature) entities to simpler
grant possibilities may be part of the solution.
The group agreed we were making good progress using the 'framework' [3].
The 2014 review scheduled for March will be delayed to May to better fit
the FDC staff workload.
1.
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/**bUK9d3SRUd<http://etherpad.wikimedia.org…
2.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/FDC_portal/Feedback_and_**
continuous_improvement_of_the_**FDC_process/Process_Survey/**
2012-13_Year_Review<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Feedback_a…
3.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Funds_Dissemination_**
Committee/Framework_for_the_**Creation_and_Initial_**Operation_of_the_FDC&l…
______________________________**_________________
Fd-advisorygroup mailing list
Fd-advisorygroup@lists.**wikimedia.org<Fd-advisorygroup@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/fd-**advisorygroup<https:…
_______________________________________________
Fd-advisorygroup mailing list
Fd-advisorygroup(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fd-advisorygroup