Global Resource Distribution Committee/Creation of the interim GRDC/Candidates/Superzerocool
To leave feedback about this candidate, please use the talk page. |
Dennis (Superzerocool)
edit| Preferred name | Dennis | |
|---|---|---|
| Language capabilities (native or professional / advanced / basic) | Spanish (native) English (advanced) Italian (basic) | |
| Region and country you identify with | LAC | |
| 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) | My area of specialization within the Wikimedia Movement is governance. I have participated in this movement for nearly 20 years, including 14 years as a co-founder and board member of Wikimedia Chile. I've actively participated in the shaping of the movement's strategic direction, including discussions such as Strategy 2030, the Movement Charter, and WCA. My experience in diverse organizational roles has given me a clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the Wikimedia movement and I'm passionate about fostering effective and inclusive governance structures. | |
| Have you ever held any role or position, either current or past, in the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters) | My previous experience in governance includes multiple terms on the Project Grants and Individual Engagement Grants committees. These experiences give me valuable insight into the funding landspace. I'm completing my first 2-year term on the LAC committee, where I've focused on creating a smooth process for analyzing the projects from different affiliates, understanding their needs, and determining how best to support them. This experience has deepened my understanding of the specific needs and opportunities of the Latin American Wikimedia community | |
| Why are you interested in the interim GRDC and what can you contribute? (max 1000 characters) | I'm interested in participating in this committee because I believe it's a great step after the Movement Charter process. While initially frustrated by the Chart's decision, after reflection and discussions, I see this interim committee as an opportunity to improve its implementation and ensure it truly empowers affiliates, volunteers, and the WMF. I can contribute by bridging the viewpoints of my region (historically underrepresented in these processes) and being a collaborative and effective team player in the discussions. | |
| Please share any volunteering or professional experience relevant for the interim GRDC (role, organization, years) (max 1000 characters) | I read a lot of affiliates' documentation, understand project grantmaking, and how the movement is trying to spread resources (financial or not financial) to the movement. In my professional life, I'm an engineer, so I do a lot of project evaluation and I have some decision-making power, so I know some techniques for reaching consensus. | |
| Describe your skills and experience relevant to the interim GRDC (max 1500 characters) | My relevant experience comes from my time serving on the Wikimedia Chile board, where I learned a lot about NGO processes, governances, and Wikimedia projects. I have also served multiple terms on other Wikimedia grants committees. These roles have provided me with skills such as listening actively, analyzing diverse perspectives, and working collaboratively to reach consensus. I consider these skills essential to effective participation in this committee. While I recognize my limitations, I'm a dedicated and hard-working team player committed to continuous improvement. | |
| Describe your understanding of the Wikimedia Movement's current resource distribution process. (max 1500 characters) | I have many skills and experience expected to be filled by any member. As a board member, I participated in the process of hiring our first professional staff member and building community during the social difficulties of the pandemic. I also facilitated communication between my local community and other regional groups and contributed to developing our activities program until last year. My experience on the Wikimedia grants committee provided me with direct experience in reviewing budgets, conducting compliance evaluations, and understanding the Wikimedia movement's goals. In my current role, I improved my ability to listen to and understand the needs of the underrepresented communities in Latin America and address some of the unique challenges in our region. I'm particularly interested in improving the current resource allocation process, which I see as not broken but needing a more formalized, volunteer-driven approach to prioritize needs, track outcomes, and share learnings across the movement. I've already engaged in discussions with other Wikimedians about how to address the challenge of increasing affiliate numbers with limited resources, and I believe I can contribute to developing practical and sustainable solutions. I'm a dedicated team player, committed to acting in the interest of the whole movement, and I'm confident I can dedicate the necessary time and effort to this important work. | |
| How do you think the GRDC could improve the current situation and which priorities do you think it should have? (max 1500 characters) | First, the committee doesn't have the last word, because the committee members are serving the movement. I prefer to hear the regional affiliates and make some recommendations (like as PTAC committee in the past weeks), before making some changes. This committee could recommend things and try to establish an equitable way to spread money and resources to everyone who needs them. It is too difficult to do it, especially if the money is not growing fast as the number of affiliates and the new technologies are reducing the number of visitors to our projects. The next improvement must be oriented to the local affiliates and how they help "to move our border 1 meter ahead than before". Other ideas are
| |
| 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) | It's an unknown path to follow. I hope that at the end of this committee, there will be a culture about how grantmaking and grant distribution are doing in our movement. The current process is good, but we can do it better. After two years, I dream of a smooth process for creating, discussing, and approving projects for affiliates, individuals, and anyone who needs support (financial or not). About hard accomplishment (not hopes...), I see this scenario:
| |