Hi Lisa, OK, so who in the Wikimedia movement is reviewing the funding applications and deciding where the money that Tides has been entrusted with gets spent?
Thanks, Mike > On 14 Dec 2020, at 21:17, Lisa Gruwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mike- > > Thanks for the question. The review and oversight that we will get from > Tides is nothing like the FDC review. They will be looking at, for example, > "Is this grant supporting activity that is legal for a 501c3 to fund?" It is > in no way a replacement for the work that the FDC or the Global Council would > do regarding grants. > > Best, > Lisa > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:55 PM Michael Peel <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Lisa, > > Isn’t this the oversight work that the WMF wanted to be able to do when it > changed from Wikimedia affiliates being able to fundraise directly to the FDC > process? Why has WMF chosen to outsource this to Tides rather than continuing > to do it in-house? And why does Tides now get to approve such grants, rather > than a community appointed committee? > > FDC was a process that worked extremely well, and was discontinued for > obscure reasons. The Global Council approach that the strategy was heading > towards looked like it might be a good replacement. Outsourcing it to Tides > seems really bad. > > Boldly creating a new fund for fellow organisations looks nice, but without > community involvement it’s a controversy in development. > > Thanks, > Mike > >> On 14 Dec 2020, at 20:11, Lisa Gruwell <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Chris- >> >> I am happy to answer your questions about Tides. No, Tides is not picking >> the grantees. The docket of grantees and the specific of the grants comes >> from us. Tides provides legal and administrative review of the grants, >> approves them, and processes the grants(i.e. wires the funding to the >> grantees). It is rare that there is ever a problem, but if Tides were to >> see one, we actually appreciate the outside review and would be open to >> hearing their reasons. There is no change for the reporting and >> transparency requirements for APG grants. Tides will also not be making >> recommendations for the grants for the Knowledge Equity Fund. They will >> play a similar role as I described for the APG grants. Again, I know there >> will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the new year. I ask your >> patience for the folks initiating this and trust that they will share more >> soon. >> >> Best, >> Lisa >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:18 AM Chris Keating <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some >> questions still. >> >> Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support >> community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants >> (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all funding for affiliates >> for this year was secured, regardless of how fundraising performed. It also >> gives staff at affiliates and the Foundation more time to work together to >> make thoughtful grants, instead of an end-of-year rush. All affiliates who >> will be receiving funding through Tides were informed of the arrangement >> last summer. All other grantmaking (Community Grants, Rapid Grants, Project >> Grants) are still being funded through WMF directly, as usual. There is a >> round of APG grants set to go out via Tides this week. >> >> Are Tides simply administering these funds at the WMF's direction, or will >> Tides start to take over decisions about who gets these grants and what >> amount different entities are eligible for? Has there been any change to the >> reporting and transparency requirements that go with the APG grants? What is >> the intention about how APG grants will work, since the FDC was abolished a >> couple of years ago and there is unlikely to be any community-driven >> replacement for it until at least a year or two's work has gone into the >> implementation of the strategy? >> >> As of now, this is a one-time commitment of approximately $4.5 million. We >> are still working on the specific initial objectives of the fund and how it >> will operate. As a pilot initiative, we’ll be learning and adapting as we >> go. >> >> Funding knowledge equity sounds like a great idea, but I have not previously >> heard of an organisation making an irrecoverable $4.5 million transfer >> without knowing what that money will be used to fund. Is there anything more >> that can be shared apart from "it'll be used to fund knowledge equity >> somehow"? And as above - is this going to be a WMF-led process (maybe even >> involving the community), or will Tides be actually making recommendations >> about who and what is funded? If the latter, how are Tides going to adjust >> to the Wikimedia community's expectations about transparency? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> New messages to: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, >> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Lisa Seitz Gruwell >> Chief Advancement Officer >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> >> New messages to: [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines> and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l> > New messages to: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>, > <mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe> > > > -- > > > Lisa Seitz Gruwell > Chief Advancement Officer > Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
