Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Global Resource Distribution Committee/Creation of the interim GRDC/Candidates/Anass Sedrati

< Global Resource Distribution Committee | Creation of the interim GRDC


Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati)

edit
Preferred name Anass Sedrati
Language capabilities (native or professional / advanced / basic) ar-N, fr-N, en-5, sv-5, es-4
Region and country you identify with MENA (Morocco) - NWE (Sweden)
Interim GRDC seats you are running for and why (regional volunteer/thematic volunteer) Regional volunteer
Do you have any topic or area of specialization within the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters) I do not have a specific specialization in the movement, as I have participated in many activities and had different hats. Among these, I am co-founder and member of the Board of Wikimedia Morocco User group, where we manage the first multiannual grant on the MENA region. Growing groups and projects is something I enjoy, and we are particularly proud of transitioning from a group of volunteers to a formal structure with professional staff and annual planning.

As mentioned, I do not have any specialization but did all of the following: Creating/editing/translating articles, being administrator, chairing international conferences, being member of program/grant committees, coordinating teams, working with WMF, organizing workshops, interpreting meetings, writing movement strategy & charter.

Have you ever held any role or position, either current or past, in the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters) Among the various volunteer roles I had in the Wikimedia Movement:
Why are you interested in the interim GRDC and what can you contribute? (max 1000 characters) I have been involved in the Wikimedia 2030 strategy since the working group phase in 2018. Between that time and now, and especially after the movement charter experience, I strongly believe that it is currently time when things start to happen and be implemented. GRDC is one of the initiatives that seem concrete and straight forward (in the sense that its scope and mandate are clear and do not need to be debated). In this context, I would like to take my experience and background from the different discussions and input gathered with them, to make them used for that regard. I have been grantee and in the granting committee, and participated in numerous discussions with key stakeholders in our movement funding (affiliates, WMF, and communities at large). I believe in a fair and collaborative way of working between all actors (the Wiki way), and would like to be involved in the continuation of the strategy implementation, and in at least one of the chapters of the movement charter.
Please share any volunteering or professional experience relevant for the interim GRDC (role, organization, years) (max 1000 characters) I have been a volunteer in various capacities within the Wikimedia movement. Among these I had positions that were tightly connected to granting, such as: Member of Simple APG committee, recipient of several WMF grants (starting from rapid grants, to project and conference grants), and board member managing the annual grant we receive at our affiliate. This diversity of roles allows me to see the full cycle of granting. My experience at the MCDC added an extra layer of complexity to my view, as I have interacted and tried to make sense of the full organizational landscape of the movement, as well as the difficulty of agreeing on one decision making model (especially in funds distribution, and on how should decide on what, and why). Moreover, the MCDC was a great place to learn collaborating and compromising, something much needed in GRDC.

Outside of the movement, I have been working as a project manager for over 10 years, including financial responsibilities and budget management.

Describe your skills and experience relevant to the interim GRDC (max 1500 characters) While I have described my skills and experiences in the previous questions, I will try to structure my answer to this one in a different manner, to address it in a thematic way:
  • Familiarity with the movement structures - I am a long time volunteer who started by online editing (and still continues), but have also worked for a while with the WMF (as a strategy liaison). I have also been part of a strategy working group (advocacy), at the MCDC, an affiliate member, and sit in the language committee. Having had all these roles gives me a good understanding of the needs of each stakeholder, and of the major pain points, especially in terms of finance.
  • Team Work - Through experiences such as MCDC, participating effectively in high-level negotiation and decision-making processes
  • Experience in financial planning and managing and executing budgets - It is something that I do in my daily life as a professional project manager, as well as with my affiliate.
  • Experience in developing comprehensive strategic plans - As I have taken part in most of the Wikimedia 2030 journey, and participated actively in drafting the 10 recommendations.
  • Experience in incorporating community feedback - Through positions such as strategy liaison for MENA region, or at different committees where incorporating feedback was one of the most important tasks, and giving a special attention to historically underrepresented communities.
Describe your understanding of the Wikimedia Movement's current resource distribution process. (max 1500 characters) It is interesting to note that although one of the Strategy recommendations is to manage internal knowledge, there is still no centralized place where the Wikimedia movement's resource distribution model is explained. Each stakeholder share separately their work, which can be overwhelming for newcomers (or even experienced Wikimedians, who do not work regularly with funding). Key actors in the model are:
  • Wikimedia Foundation - The foundation receives money mainly through donations and disseminates it to the movement in many ways. One of these ways is grants (whose percentage out of the total budget of the WMF is decided by the Board of Trustees). These grants have different types (rapid, conference, research, annual, etc.), and (most of) decisions on funding or not applications are made by 8 regional fund committees, composed of volunteers supported by WMF staff.
  • Affiliates - Many affiliates offer funding to community members through different ways. It could be by providing project grants (covering a photo-walk for example) or participation to a conference (Wikimania) or supporting smaller communities (such as Wikimedia Nigeria, who has a grant program on their own).
  • Hubs - Even if they are a fairly new structure, one of the anticipated roles for hubs will be to disseminate fund in the scope a hub covers. This is a work already done by some of them, such as CEE, who has a microgrants program.
How do you think the GRDC could improve the current situation and which priorities do you think it should have? (max 1500 characters) Looking at the description of the interim GRDC in its Meta page, and to the responsibilities that will be given to it, my first thought is that this committee can improve many things, if it is given the tools, resources and mandate that it needs. Examples of what GRDC could improve:
  • Suggesting ways for a better and more efficient communication and collaboration between stakeholders.
    • This includes the problem of documentation that I mentioned in the previous question (i.e GRDC can own this task of mapping all existing funding opportunities, so that the wheel is not reinvented every time).
    • It includes also suggesting way to better communicate with the community, for example when sharing grant decisions and what best practices can be learned
  • Decision-making workflows and transparency
    • For example, how where 8 regions decided for regional fund committees and based on which criteria? The GRDC can investigate this area and see if this is the best model (based on objective metrics and methodology that it can define during its working time).

Building on this, and on the description on Meta (to stay on that scope), the priorities that GRDC needs to have for its 2 first years include in my opinion:

  • Set the resource distribution strategy and policies, including the types of activities and entities to support, and diversity and equity policies.
  • Oversee the Regional Fund Committees (although it is unclear to me if this model can be questioned or not, and if not, why).
By the end of the pilot in two years, what should the GRDC have accomplished and how should we measure its success? (max 1500 characters) To say that the pilot GRDC has succeeded after two years from now, it should in my opinion:
  • Have mapped the resource distribution process in the movement as a whole (not only WMF, which is well mapped in my opinion) - Measure: A clear report detailing existing processes and involved stakeholders).
  • Identified a list of current issues and challenges to be solved (in all the chain, including issues with WMF, or with RFCs or any problem related to grant making), through community conversations and by inviting relevant stakeholders (affiliates, WMF), and using earlier material (from MCDC, strategy working groups, etc) - Measure: A list shared publicly with all.
  • Have created new distribution strategy and policies, solving the issues shared in the point above. Measure: Strategy written and ready to be implemented
  • Made at least one recommendation to the WMF in relation the Wikimedia Community Fund, especially for its annual plan (measure: Recommendation sent, probably in year 2. Also in long term another measure would be to see the impact of that recommendation and not that it is just seen, but has no effect).
  • Paved the way for a smooth transition before ending its mandate. - Measure: A clear plan for the way forward, using all the deliverables above (similar to a road plan or guide for those taking over).
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Resource_Distribution_Committee/Creation_of_the_interim_GRDC/Candidates/Anass_Sedrati&oldid=28311690"