_007.JPG)
.JPG){kind=spacer}
Elections have begun for five community members of the Funds Dissemination Committee, the Foundation's volunteer body for judging and recommending millions of dollars worth of annual grants to affiliates in the movement. This is the first year in which Wikimedians will elect the full quota of five members, who will serve until the next election in mid-2017. The election lasts just eight days, from Sunday 3 May until 23:59 UTC on Sunday 10 May, so at the time of publication, voters will need to act promptly. All Wikimedians who satisfy the requirements may vote. Voters can update their selections by simply going through the process again before the deadline.
Eleven candidates are competing for the five positions: Snezhana ("Zana") Shtrkovska (native speaker of Macedonian, from Macedonia); Tanweer Morshed (Bengali, Bangladesh); Shawn Chen (English, US); Itzik Edri (Hebrew, Israel); Mike Peel (English, UK); Pete Ekman (English, US); Felix Nartey (English, Ghana); Liam Wyatt (English, Australia); Ad Huikeshoven (Dutch, the Netherlands); Lorenzo Losa (Italian, Italy); and Michał Buczyński (Polish, Poland). The Signpost put 10 propositions to each candidate for their response; the results are set out below.
Candidates' basic details and election statements are displayed on Meta. Links to translations in many languages are trumpeted at the top of the election pages, showing yet again that relying on pro bono translation ends up almost nowhere: non-English-speakers beware. A table of further information on the candidates, including total edits on their home-site and on all WMF sites, appears on the talkpage of the German Wikipedia's news outlet, Der Kurier.
A ternary voting system is used, imported last year from the English Wikipedia's ArbCom elections. This gives voters three options for each candidate—support, neutral, or oppose—in which avoiding "neutral" votes strengthens the positions of those whom a voter supports, on simple arithmetic grounds. The formula S/(S+O) will determine the successful candidates, who must then be endorsed by the WMF Board.
Elections for the FDC ombudsperson—who receives, documents, and makes recommendations to the WMF Board on complaints concerning the FDC process—are being held concurrently. There are two candidates, Kirill Lokshin (English, US) and Mykola Kozlenko (Ukrainian, Ukraine/Paris).
In March 2012 the WMF Board passed a resolution setting up a staff-supported volunteer body to allocate annual funding to eligible affiliates. In two rounds each year (October and March), the Funds Dissemination Committee has since pored over, analysed, and met in San Francisco to discuss dozens of lengthy applications detailing track-records and spending proposals, and made recommendations to the Board that have thus far always been accepted. The FDC receives an annual budget for each pair of rounds, which the Board has held at 2013–14 levels of US$6 million until at least the end of the 2015–16 year (Board minutes and p. 7, WMF Annual Plan).
The FDC's "framework" provides a year-by-year system of four Board-appointed members in even-numbered years and five community-elected members in odd-numbered years (after elections in 2013 and 2014 for two and four members, respectively).
The Signpost put to the candidates a set of 10 propositions related to the FDC, asking them to respond on a 1–5 numerical scale, with brief comments. The table below sets out their responses, with counts of "net positive" responses (1s and 2s), "net negatives" (4s and 5s), and neutrals (3s).[A]
The 1–5 Likert scale was:
| Proposition | Mike | Liam | Shawn | Ad | Tanweer | Zana | Pete | Lorenzo | Michał | Itzik | Felix Nartey | Av (StDev) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appoint external tech experts | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2.8 (1.2) |
| Make Wikidata separately eligible | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.3 (1.2) |
| Direct unspent funds to planned new endowment | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2.6 (1.3) |
| Current FDC budget is sufficient | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.6 (0.8) |
| Don't align FDC judgment more closely with tech needs | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3.1 (1.0) |
| Method of FDC appt/election should continue | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2.0 (0.6) |
| Retain "guardrails" | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3.4 (1.1) |
| Align FDC judgment more closely with edu. outreach | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.5 (0.5) |
| Advisory committee no longer needed | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2.8 (1.2) |
| Prioritise global south | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2.2 (0.9) |
For each proposition, we give the number of positive responses (1s and 2s), the number of negative responses (4s and 5s), and the number of neutrals/no responses (3s).[B]
(a) "The WMF should be appointing external technological expertise to the FDC to enhance its ability to judge major technical grants, such as projects related to Wikidata." [5 positive; 3 negative; 3 neutral]
Michał strongly agrees, and Lorenzo strongly disagrees. Some candidates point out that a reasonable alternative is for the FDC to consult the opinions of subject-matter experts where the Committee itself lacks the necessary expertise. Ad finds the proposition tangential: he would prefer a fully elected FDC.
(b) "Wikidata should be spun off from Wikimedia Germany into an independent FDC-eligible organisation to address the need to increase the development of Wikidata, and remove it from competing with demands on the German chapter’s budget." [2 positive; 4 negative; 5 neutral]
The Wikidata proposition is probably the most provocative, and unsurprisingly the least favoured. Mike and Liam strongly disagree with it, as does Ad in principle ("the FDC doesn't have a say in such a question. Wikidata is a geat success, [the German chapter] does a great job"). For Michał, an "independent, international entity working on Wikidata would be plausible", but he feels that its budget can be quite transparent even within the German chapter, and Wikidata should be kept semi-independent from the WMF. Lorenzo comments: "It may make sense, from the FDC point of view, to separate the evaluation of Wikidata from the rest of Wikimedia Germany, but I would not advise to create a new entity just to support Wikidata." For Liam, "this idea would not make Wikidata any more efficient than being a department of WM-De, as this would require much of the organisational infrastructure of the chapter be duplicated. Tanweer strongly supports the proposition: "The Wikidata project, though developed by Wikimedia Deutschland, has now come into such a position that it needs to be developed by the wider community and so its authority for control and supervision should be transferred to an eligible entity."
(c) "The unspent funds from each annual FDC budget should go into the planned new WMF endowment." [5 positive; 3 negative; 2 neutral]
Currently, unspent funds at the end of each year go to the WMF's reserves, but the recent plans to create an endowment raise the question of whether unspent funds should be put into longer-term safekeeping or spent by the WMF in the shorter term. The proposition is controversial, with strong agreement by Shawn and Lorenzo, and strong disagreement by Ad, for whom "there shouldn't be an endowment. ... Unspent FDC money should roll forward to the next FDC round." Liam agrees that an endowment should be created, but does not think it should "compete" against FDC allocations. Michał suggests directing unspent funds to a "quasi-endowment".
(d) "The current FDC budget is sufficient for the movement’s needs, given the competing needs of the editorial communities." [4 positive; 1 negative; 6 neutral]
Ad strongly believes more funds are needed to support existing and new affiliates, but objected to the notion that affiliates compete against the needs of editorial communities. Michał thinks an increase will be required when Wikidata expands, and that should software development by affiliates increase, more funding would be required. Tanweer strongly supports the proposition. More than half of the candidates are neutral on this matter, as for the next proposition.
(e) "The FDC’s judgment should not be more closely aligned with the movement’s technological needs." [2 positive; 3 negative; 6 neutral] (note polarity reversal)
Michał strongly agrees with closer tech alignment, linking to his previously expressed opinion. For Shawn, the FDC "should ultimately be aligned with the guidance provided by the Foundation and its community of what would benefit the movement's mission". Lorenzo has no major concerns about the alignment between the FDC recommendations and the movement's technological needs. Itzik strongly agrees that tech needs should not be aligned more closely with FDC decisions.
(f) "The method of appointing/electing FDC members has served us well and should be continued beyond the Board’s arrangements." [9 positive; 0 negative; 2 neutral]
This is the most strongly supported proposition of all. Lorenzo does think "the current ratio is sound (but there might be a problem of continuity: none of the members ending their term now is seeking reelection", but nevertheless responded "neutral", as did Ad, who would strongly prefer a higher ratio of elected members.
(g) "The “guardrails” (limits of +/– 20% in funding changes from year to year) should be retained." [2 positive; 6 negative; 3 neutral]
The guardrails are controversial, and this is among the two least popular statements, with Mike strongly against. Shawn writes that the guardrails "create a bias towards limiting the potential of an applicant within those means. I believe we can graduate from the transitory phase and allow more opportunities for our grantees." Michał believes they should be increasingly flexible and merit-based. This is similar to Liam's view: "much more context needs to be taken into account for each applicant than merely applying a formula like this".
(h) "The FDC’s judgment should be more closely aligned with the movement’s broader educational outreach." [5 positive; 1 negative; 5 neutral]
There is weak support.
(i) "The FDC has matured sufficiently that a separate advisory committee is no longer needed." [3 positive; 5 negative; 3 neutral]
This is the other least-popular statement. Lorenzo strongly agrees, and Michał wants the advisory committee to be more pro-active in providing expertise on tech, community, and financial matters.
(j) "Where possible, the FDC should prioritise global south funding." [8 positive; 1 negative; 2 neutral]
Given that a huge majority of voters are from the global north, this is a politically intricate issue for candidates. Pete and Tanweer are strongly supportive. Ad believes that "all global south programs already well funded". There were several nuanced opinions: Michał: "Prioritize on efficacy, effectiveness, SWOT [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats]". Liam: "Yes, but only in as much as this is the strategic goal of Wikimedia more generally." Lorenzo is keen to value diversity, "which is a bit different (and a bit more general) than global south. And, above all, it should prioritize impact ... although [the global south is] important, it's an issue that goes well beyond funding, and I don't want to convey the impression that funding is the solution."
Pete Ekman provides only a summary statement, which is oriented towards the big picture of the FDC's evolving role:
| “ | The questions contain many good ideas, but I haven't seen them discussed as part of an overall package of what the FDC should do. We do need such a discussion to thrash out what the FDC should and shouldn't do. One thing is certain – the FDC cannot remain an organization that almost exclusively funds Annual Program Grants for European chapters. Frank discussion is sorely needed. | ” |
Voters can ask questions of candidates here. Voting (and re-voting) is open until the end of Sunday UTC.
______________________
Footnotes:
Discuss this story
Duration
Wow, the elections were held in just eight days. I never saw any banner or message of it, just about Wiki Loves Earth. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]