助成金:APG/資金配分委員会
 | 当ページは記録のために保存してあります。ここに述べてある助成金関連のプログラムや方針もしくは関連の詳細には、すでに改訂されたものを含む場合があります。 ウィキメディア財団の現行の助成金プログラムは、 助成金:はじめにをご参照願います。 |
On March 30, 2012, the WMF Board of Trustees resolved that the Foundation would create a Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC). The sole purpose of the FDC would be to make recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees for funding activities and initiatives in support of the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement.
The FDC framework and the hard work of the members who served on it across the years have been instrumental in shaping our movement's organizational development as well as our collective mission. Over the past three years, the FDC deliberations were put on pause so that key movement actors, individuals and groups could concentrate on developing our Movement Strategy.
Terms of the current members expired in 2019. The members came to come together to discuss their views on some of the successes of the framework and what were some of their challenges in addressing a growing, diversified and decentralized movement. To ensure the institutional memory and learnings of the FDC framework are preserved a retrospective was completed with members of the most recent committee.
FDC Retrospective
Objective
A lightweight retrospective was designed and completed with FDC members. The goal was to maintain the institutional memory and lessons learned from the FDC process.
Timeline
| Major milestones | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012年 | Board resolved to create the FDC |
| 2013年 | First elections held for FDC and deliberations began |
| 2014年 | Advisory Group recommendations given |
| 2018年 | FDC put on hold to hold to participate in movement strategy |
| 2022年 | FDC dissolution by the board of trustees |
Key documents
- Meta page on history
- FDC main landing page
- Board resolution on the closure of the FDC
Summary of Retrospective Interviews
Overview
The lightweight overview of lessons learned was developed based on conversations with Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) members who agreed on the questions to reflect on and participated in the conversations. Thank you to all the Committee members who took the time to be interviewed or contribute to review this document: Liam Wyatt, Garfield Byrd, Delphine Menard, Anne Risker, Michał Buczyński, Dumisani Ndubane
Did the FDC meet its goal as outlined in the 2014 advisory group recommendations?
The FDC was formed to operate the Annual Plan Grants (APG) participatory grantmaking process that had community legitimacy, was transparent, and equitable. The Board mandated that FDC give recommendations on funding decisions directly for board approval and the FDC was an elected body. The goal of the FDC was that the funds should be distributed transparently to established affiliates that had structured plans and the committee did achieve this goal. There was a participatory process for decision making that had legitimacy and a transparent process for all the community to view. As being a chapter was a criteria for eligibility to apply for an APG, and there was a moratorium on new chapters – the APG program did not support the equitable disbursement of funding in the movement as there was no other path for newer affiliates to receive the same level of access to funding.
The additional goal of review of the Wikimedia Foundation annual planning process was never truly realized. The principle of having the Foundation plans be reviewed by the movement remains important. A viable review process given the Foundation size and scope of operations still needs to be established as having it go through the same application process as chapters never adequately met the needs for review.
What Worked Well
- Participatory approach to decision making and bringing together a diverse group of perspectives around the table.
- Transparent collaborative process to distribute funds to well-established chapters that was accepted by the movement as legitimate and a balance to the Foundation unilateral decision making.
- Dedicated and knowledgeable colleagues, e.g. providing good insight about particular regional, cultural, size of economy etc. context it was a good mix of people with different experiences and backgrounds.
- The FDC was able to give recommendations to grantees and enforce those often times tough decisions when it was needed.
- First attempt to measure and evaluate programmatic impact
- FDC members tended to become or be strong leaders in their communities and within the broader movement which led to increased capacity.
- The FDC process could nudge and support priorities. It put emphasis on what it valued and it was very useful to keep people off of tangents. Reinforcing a joint narrative from the foundation and community i.e on supporting gender diversity. Chapters were mostly very well intentioned but it is very helpful to give them direction and guidance.
- FDC partnering with staff worked really well. The collaboration of staff and FDC committee having community engagement with chapters really was supportive especially those that were at risk or needed to have difficult conversations.
- The strict timeline followed by the FDC was appreciated by the community and was supported by the important in person deliberation process.
- A place to hold conversations about important topics such as:
- healthy and relevant, coherent and well-balanced programmatic portfolio
- quality benchmarks and reasonable (realistic but not too low) targets
- efficacy vs. effectiveness vs. stability
- meaningful inclusion in the particular context
- governance: including proper oversight, staff issues and leadership issues
- synergies: co-operations within the Movement, partnerships outside and services provided by a funded entity to others
- exploring new programmatic ideas and frameworks
What Didn’t Work So Well
- Once recognition for chapters was placed on hold it meant the Annual Plan Grants program was not expanded to new groups. Primarily it meant that older organizations in Europe were able to receive greater amounts of funding through the program and others were not.
- FDC focused on application review and accountability. Any additional support was provided by the Program Officers. Capacity building of grantees was a large need that was never sufficiently met.
- The level of bureaucracy in the application process, reporting and metrics was overly burdensome. It did not allow for evaluation of projects over time, nor for comparison among applicants, nor for the acknowledgement of local context.
- Analysis of applications across regions needed more nuance as the focus on the cost of staff in various regions were dramatically different. Adding one staff in Europe for example could raise the budget exponentially. No clear way to address that dichotomy.
- Distance from the Board at times and moments when the Board did not follow FDC recommendations especially in regards to the Foundation.
FDC より権力分散に関する助言。
- 成熟した組織にこそ寄せられる役割に関する一連の明確な期待。たとえば期待と潜在的な影響を明確にするのに役立つのはPR対応職の系統、資金調達、技術支援など。これにより相互の責任、信頼および能力を構築します。
- 財団または外部の資金調達イニシアチブから得た資金の申請者に向けられた期待に関して、申請者が多かれ少なかれ支給組織から独立しているべきかどうか、非常に明確なガイドラインを採用。これは特定の状況を想定したベンチマークも行なって情報を提供する必要があります。
- 助成金額の決定を説明する場合は例外なく、人々が決定の背後にある理由を理解すれば容易に受け取られます。
- 委員は地域社会の健全性に関与する重要人物になる可能性があるため、委員会は2、3年ごとに交代する必要があります。つまりFDC委員は、予算やコミュニティ・プログラム、成長の道筋について多くを学びました。各自が所属するコミュニティや提携団体に肯定的な影響を与えました。
- 委員の要件として、予算に関する能力をすでに備えた人物であることが求められ – 特に通常予算の支出と、職員をプログラム経費の1項目として評価する方法。
- プログラム責任者（PO）を務める職員はその役割の重要性を自認し、透明性の確保を要件とします。常勤のプログラム管理者の要件とは審議に貴重な洞察をもたらしました。委員は意見の批判や質問ができ、より多くの情報に基づいた決定にはそのPOの視点が不可欠です。
- 不適切な資金を要請する複数の極端な事例には、停止の手順があると確めてください。さもなければプロセスに不信感が生じます。
- 提案者との連絡を緊密に保ち、緊密な対話の輪によって物事を議論し、お互いのよりよい理解をもたらして、少なくとも基本のレベルで実行を監視します。
- WMF理事会と緊密な連絡。
- WMFに対する推奨事項の履行について、理事会の権限付与を含めて内部統制／監査を始動させます。
解散までのFDC委員名簿
| 氏名 (利用者名) | 使用言語 | 場所 | 役割 (任期) | 忌避 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom) | pl-N, en-4 | Warsaw, Poland | Elected (2017–19) | N/A |
| Garfield Byrd (Gtbiv) | en-N | San Francisco, U.S. | Appointed (2016–18) | N/A |
| Anne Clin (Risker) | en-N, fr-2 | Canada | Appointed (2014–18) | N/A |
| Bishakha Datta (Bishdatta) | en | India | Appointed (2016–18) | N/A |
| Katherine Bavage (User:Leela0808) | en-N | UK | Elected (2017–19) | Wikimedia UK |
| Candelaria Laspeñas (Cande laspe) | es-N, en | Argentina | Appointed (2016–18) | Wikimedia Argentina |
| Lorenzo Losa (Laurentius) | it-N, en-3, es–1 | Milan, Italy | Elected (2017–19) | N/A |
| Osmar Valdebenito (User:B1mbo) | es-N, en-3, fr-1 | Chile | Elected (2017–19) | Wikimedia Argentina |
| Liam Wyatt (Wittylama) | en-N, fr-4, it-2, sv–1 | Bologna, Italy | Elected (2017–19) | N/A |
| Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit) | pl-N, en-4, de–1, ru–1 | Cambridge, MA, USA / Warsaw, Poland | WMF Board observer (2015– ) | non-voting, observer |
| Nataliia Tymkiv (Nataliia) | uk-N, en-4 | Ukraine | WMF Board observer (2017– ) | non-voting, observer |
| Winifred Olliff (Wolliff (WMF)) | en-N, sq-4, es-2 | San Francisco, USA | Senior Program officer, WMF Staff | non-voting, staff |
| Delphine Ménard (Delphine (WMF)) | fr-N, en-4, de-3, es-2, it-2 | Frankfurt, Germany | Program officer, WMF Staff | non-voting, staff |
| Kirill Lokshin | en-N, ru-N, fr–1 | Washington D.C., USA | Ombudsman (2017–19) Appeals to the Ombudsperson |
non-participant of deliberations |
歴代委員と任期
薄紫色: 初代の委員。黄色: 候補。暗緑色: 任用。淡いオレンジ: 理事会の連絡員。薄緑色: オンブズパーソン (監察委員)。
関連項目
