Following-up with a few more pieces of material: *FDC Frequently Asked Questions: Process of Continuous Improvement[1] *2012-13 FDC Round 1 survey results[2]
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#FDC_Process_Continuous_Improvement [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Feedback_and_continuous_improvement_of_the_FDC_process/Process_Survey/2012-13_Round_1 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Anasuya Sengupta <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Pine, > > My apologies for the tardiness of this reply; I've been away in India with > family and am only just back. > > It's an important question to ask, because the Grantmaking team's programs > - including the FDC process - have and are being set up with a strong > self-evaluation component. We exist to support our movement through grants > and shared knowledge as key resources, and we can only do this well if > we're good at listening and learning ourselves. > > Overall, we're looking at multiple feedback mechanisms (including surveys > and discussion groups at conferences like WMConf, Wikimania). As an > example, we did a survey of the FDC Round 1 process which we shared in > Milan, and used as a way to get more face-to-face feedback. This helps us > know both broad and specific areas that we need to improve on and to do so > quickly and appropriately. One thing to keep in mind with grantmaking > programs is that process feedback is easily and quickly incorporated (like > wiki-tables that made life miserable for FDC Round 1 applicants and we > could improve for Round 2 applicants). However, substantive feedback (like > the nature of questions, or entirely new sections of inquiry) need to be > incorporated at the end of the year for the new year, so that the nature of > the proposal doesn't change dramatically over the year, or from one round > to the next: it's not fair on either the new folks applying, or the > committee reviewing the proposals. We intend to do surveys of all our major > grantmaking programs over the next few months, so that we have a good > baseline against which to measure our progress as a team. > > Again, it's useful to remember that our proposal processes might seem > 'heavy' to many in the movement, but they're pretty light-weight (with the > possible exception of wiki-tables) in comparison to other grantmaking > processes that are far more demanding for far smaller grant amounts. As a > comparison, in the human rights and social justice grantmaking world, most > grants are in the range of 5,000-50,000 USD. > > For the FDC in particular, the FDC Advisory Group will assess the first > year, and towards the end of the second year (March 2014), give the Board a > recommendation on whether the mechanism works (or not) and should continue > (or not). The FDC Ombudsperson also gives an annual report which is > independent and autonomous on the FDC process.[1] With these various > inputs, the staff and FDC will create a report for Year 1 which we hope > will be shared back with the community at Wikimania. > > Other forms of external or independent assessments will also be part of our > process: Kevin Gorman's retrospective of the grants program so far, for > instance, was really useful and we've already incorporated several of his > recommendations.[2] With the Program Evaluation team, we're also going to > get much better at sharing the good and best practices that already exist > in the movement, and at pointing out work that's relevant from other > movements. > > Finally, we're planning some internal and external research to better > provide guidance to grant applicants on issues like potential growth > trajectories and useful ways of thinking about moving from entirely > volunteer to staffed groups. We're obviously not working on this in > isolation - there has already been some good thinking within the movement > on this - and we'd be glad to be in conversation with anyone who wants to > work with us on these issues. > > The Grantmaking team is a work in progress - we didn't exist in our present > form last year, we've essentially restructured and reconfigured ourselves > over the past few months, set up the FDC and IEG processes, and learnt > rapidly about what works (and what might not) - and we're always open to > feedback. If people are uncertain about who to reach out to, please do get > in touch with me: as the person who heads the Grantmaking team, (some > element of) the buck does stop with me. :-) > > thanks, > Anasuya > > [1] > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#FDC_Ombudsperson > [2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Retrospective_2009-2012 > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:34 PM, ENWP Pine <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Asaf, > > > > Thank you for sharing your perspective. > > > > This situation is complicated. I think it should be reviewed by an > > uninvolved third party, probably the FDC ombudsperson. I think it would > > take significant time and a lot of emails in this thread to accomplish > what > > a review by the ombudsperson could accomplish in a faster and more > thorough > > manner. > > > > Would you or someone else from the Grants staff please address the more > > broader questions that I raised earlier? I realize that these may have > been > > easily overlooked due to the high volume of email on this list recently, > so > > I'll repeat here. > > > > "Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the > > value of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with > > regards to chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first > > full time employee. There have also been comments made regarding the > > "heavy" nature of the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff > > please indicate whether a review of these concerns is under > consideration, > > if so, how they plan to conduct the review?" > > > > I think you partially addressed these questions in your response but I > > would appreciate a more direct reply from you, Anasuya, Jessie, or anyone > > else in the Grantmaking and Programs group. Please feel free to fork > into a > > separate thread if you like. > > Thanks, > > > > Pine > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > > > > -- > ***Anasuya Sengupta > Senior Director of Grantmaking > 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! > Support Wikimedia <https://donate.wikimedia.org/> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > -- *Jessie Wild Learning & Evaluation * *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/> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
