Talk:Global Resource Distribution Committee/Proposal

Dedicated conversation space for Global Resource Distribution Committee proposal

On October 1, 2024 this dedicated meta space for information on the proposed pilot of a Global Resource Distribution Committee was created to keep the information up to date and ensure more straightforward connection between the conversation and the proposal.

As a result, everyone who has thoughts, ideas, or comments regarding the Global Resource Distribution Committee is now invited to contribute to this talk page. The comments left in the previous space will be copied over and a redirect will be added there.

Looking forward to continued great conversations on this topic! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Resource Distribution

(copied over from the previous conversation space on October 1, 2024)

Being a former member of the first FDC and now being a member of N&W Europe Regional Funds Committee, i both applaud the proposal at the same time I give a big sigh of frustration. The applauds is for the general set up of one GRDC and eight Regional Funds Committees and the general principles proposed for them. The sigh is for the set up/implementation for the different bodies. Just this year, in the N&W funds committee and in the informal groups discussing the GRDC there is emerging a sense that the group of EDs (for chapters and/or corresponding in other affiliates) will/could/should be a key stakeholder in this ecosystem. Should the members in the regional bodies primary be taken from former EDs, or some parts of it? Should this group be formalized as an election body for new members, or a part of it?. Should there be established a complementing body of non EDs, for he EDs to not a have 100% say in this? As understood, these questions are in an early phase, and needs to be discussed more thoroughly and broader, but I believe it would be a mistake to run into implementation as written here. Once again a top-down approach that miss out on the input of several that is the way we work in the project (bottom-up). And at the same time as I want more discussions, I see it leasable to create a GRDC as proposed to jan 1. Anders Wennersten (Yger) (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Anders Wennersten, Yael Weissburg here, VP of Community Growth. Thank you for this reflection. I'm glad to hear that in some ways this proposal builds on what we learned from the FDC and the Regional Funds Committees. That is certainly the intent; to improve on what worked/is working and discard what isn't.

For the last 6 months we've been engaging with Affiliate EDs on how we can improve the grants distribution process, including for next year's budget, and regardless of the outcome of the Charter vote. I am currently drafting a summary of that process, including what we learned and heard, and I will tag you when it's published (my hope is end of next week). In short, there seems to be common agreement that Affiliate EDs, while not the only stakeholders in the grants process, are the primary stakeholders, and therefore they must be better included in the process. Precisely what you're calling attention to.

What we were trying to wrestle with in the proposal is how to bring that perspective in without putting EDs in unfair positions where they represent both their own Affiliate and the broader region, and also how we don't overprivilege existing Affiliates as we as a movement make space for new ones. In my mind, what feels clear is that there needs to be mutual accountability - that however the Regional Funds Committees are composed, they are accountable to the Affiliates and the community in their regions, and that the Affiliates and communities delegate authority to the Regional Funds Committees.

I like the questions you've posed (copying below), and would value hearing from you and others about your ideas here:

Should the members in the regional bodies primary be taken from former EDs, or some parts of it? Should this group be formalized as an election body for new members, or a part of it?.

[My own questions]: Maybe there are ways we try to test one or more of these in the first iteration? Something like, regional elections with at least one seat needing to be filled by a former ED? Something else? RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see you also are thinking of how to best involve EDs more or less formally in the upcoming process of establishment and running of the Regional Funds Committees. And I like your first spontaneous suggestions, but I believe a more dedicated group/process to elobarate on these issues must be established rather soon if anything should be concrete before end of year. I suppose we can take it on after you have published your summary next week? Perhaps you can complement that summary with a proposal of how to continue this discussion in order to establish some type of routines, even if preliminary, before end of year Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anders,

Absolutely. I'll tag you in on that. In the meantime, my overall proposal is that we continue the discussion on-wiki; that we do what our community is so good at and deliberate and debate in the open. I'm hoping this page can be that place, but happy to move the discussion elsewhere if you can point me to a more appropriate place. RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Committee composition

I understand that not everyone is happy with the Regional Funds committees, but I'm not sure how this will solve any of the problems that previous bodies might have. It would also be important to bring some more of the documentation of the current problems that the Regional Funds committees are having and how this solution would address them, since it's not 100% clear where this proposal is coming from or what are the problems that the proposal is trying to address. As the BoT has expressed, form follows function, so it would be good to see that the BoT is doing what they preach.

Moreover, having community & elected bodies is important, but there are several assumptions here that need to be unpacked around "representativeness", and/or how a popular vote might solve current deficiencies. In any case, any committee working on funds should pick for skills & abilities, not only for popularity. There are ways in which this could be solved:

• a number of seats for onwiki volunteers interested in participating in the decision making processes, elected by vote through an on-wiki process;
• a number of seats for affiliate members/volunteers (including board representatives, movement organizers, etc.), could be TDB how to elect them (could be with a vote from the affiliates or with members of the affiliates or etc.);
• a number of seats allocated to professionals that are actually working on the civil society space and have a professional background on the topics that are normally in the interest of affiliates and/or have experience with strategic processes. These seats could be the last to be appointed, with a process that involves the first & second categories deciding on who to call, etc., with the aid of Program Officers for each region.

Popularity when connected to money won't lead to better outcomes, and might end up creating unfair situations for a lot of reasons. As an example, some of the gender work back from 2010-2011 wasn't very popular among the online editor community, which pushed back against any work that tried to address the (persistent) gender gap. Some of the hardest topics that society needs the Wikimedia movement to be delivering reliable information on are very niche or hard to grasp if you're not expert in the topic, or might not seem as impactful for a number of reasons. There are no safeguards being proposed to ensure that there's diversity, representation & equity being brought to such a body -- so you could end up in a situation where there's more representation from certain countries or certain demographics with more power than others. Broad participation doesn't always lead to better representation, particularly in the Wikimedia movement, where we estimate that only 1 out of 10 editors are women, not to mention other minorities and population groups that are barely represented in our movement.

There's also a balancing act that needs to be made among the different stakeholders involved in making decisions around funding, funding allocation, distribution of resources, etc. Otherwise, the problems that the Funds Dissemination Committees had will be re-created and re-enacted again.

Some of the criteria being proposed is also very problematic, such as the idea that "funds could be allocated based on other criteria such as population, community size, community need, etc.". Whatever criteria should be in line with economic justice -- for several reasons, all the criteria mentioned there goes against important justice principles (small populations receive less money; countries where people have more time to volunteer and have bigger communities would be favored instead of those were economic conditions, educational backgrounds, etc, make it harder to volunteer on Wikimedia projects, etc., etc). Any definition of impact of the work an affiliate is doing should involve a conversation with affiliates working on this region, and not just a decision made by the Board of Trustees, the Wikimedia Foundation, or even a semi-elected body. Subsidariety also comes with knowing the local reality you're operating in.

This proposal is concerning because it has the opportunity to exacerbate problems in regional power distribution dynamics, and I'm expressing my opinion here just to give voice to this concern. Moreover, I think that this process should have been done in a completely different way, and that the Board is eroding public trust in the decision making processes at the WMF. --Scann (WDU) (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You raise some important issues. My impression is that the new in this proposal is the creation of the overall body, GRDC, being composed of non WMF, and this set up is dearly needed (and new). The regional bodies are proposed to remain much the same, but their composition and election is not clear and need further discussion. My experience tells me that there are three major aspects these bodies need to look at in allocating funds to affiliates/user groups:1. quality and benefits in the applications 2. The balance of promoting newbees and supporting older/bigger affiliates 3. The issues of local incomes and if we should have a "cap" of funding to bigger affiliates expecting any further wanted growth to be financed locally.

For the composition I believe, as you state, it would be beneficial to have members related partly to the affiliates (my proposal is former EDs) and partly with members with no direct relation to the affiliates (but here I think in realty they would have some experience being a member in some bodies beforehand, and then being a little bit known already). People being "outsiders" I do not see being of benefit, we already have the region fund officer and it is a critical competence for members to know all issues from "the inside".

For the election of members I am very unsure how to do this, but think in general an election body could be beneficial, but composed of whom? I also am hesitant if is good to have elections where "everyone" will be involved, perhaps better to leave all to the election bodies, but I am unsure and interested to hear other ideas/opinions on this. Anders Wennersten (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Scann (WDU),

Thanks for your comment and for the specific proposals you offer for improvement. I think the suggestion of having different ways for Regional Funds Committees to be filled is a very important one. The examples you give are one way to think about ensuring that these committees are mutually accountable to their communities, which is what we're trying to solve for here, as it's one of the top concerns that has been raised about how they are currently composed. I'd be curious what others think of Scann's proposal here.

I want to respond to your comment about the "criteria being proposed" for how RFCs make decisions. As I mentioned on our call earlier this week, we are not proposing any of these criteria - the suggestion here was that each region should decide for itself what criteria it believes helps to make effective funds distribution decisions. In line with the principle of Subsidiarity, this means that one region might decide that funds are allocated based on grants that prove measurable impact, and another region may believe that dividing funding without grants and with more consideration of other factors is more appropriate. We're in no way proposing the criteria themselves - we were using them as examples (hence the "e.g."). I hope that clarifies the substance of what is being proposed. RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RWeissburg (WMF), thanks for your response. You mention that "One of the top concerns that has been raised is that the current composition of the committees (means that they) are not mutually accountable to their communities". Where is the research, survey or documentation that has identified this as the top concern? Where is the evidence that backs this shift? Scann (WDU) (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the top concerns that has been raised to the Foundation when discussing grantmaking with Affiliates and communities at places like Wikimedia Summit, Talking:2024, and one-on-one conversations. It's not a research project we've undertaken. RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Scann (WDU) thanks so much for this question. As the person formally in charge of Learning and Evaluation within the Community Resources team I led the feedback process for 21/22/23 fiscal years. You can find the reports here: 21/22 round 1, 21/22 round 2 and 22/23 both rounds executive summary and full report. As a result of this feedback there are several issues that the Community Resources team have attempted to address in improving procedures and support systems for both grantees and Regional Fund Committee members (RFC). However, there was reiterative "more structural" feedback such as reshaping the way RFC are selected and the skills set they should have, as well as having a more participatory process to define global and regional budgets. Hopefully the resource distribution pilot that will be collectively designed will help address some of these issues in a iterative way. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place for feedback on the Experimental Global Resource Distribution Committee (EGRDC) proposal, which I was able to get an initial handle on through remote participation in Wikimania. I was not involved with FDC and am not familiar with it. However, it seems that the FDC was replaced by the RFCs, and is now being recreated. What was the original rationale for replacing the FDC, and what were lessons that led to what seems a reversal and a (partial?) recreation of a global body? (Were lessons learned unable to be applied, were new lessons learnt that outweighed previous ones?) Given the two-year timeframe, would a successful GRDC experiment look like? This will be important information for the initial members, whose first terms exceed that experimental period.

On EGRDC membership, the procedures are undefined, but they should be clear on if the 16 members are drawn directly from the RFCs and/or are otherwise chosen by the RFCs, and if the first how that interacts with the composition of the RFCs. (An immediate new election? Appointment is another option, and seems to be proposed if there is a need to replace a RFC member mid-term. Will the EGRDC and RFC terms start at the same time of the year or be staggered?) A smaller point would be clarifying what the proposed "served one term on a Regional Funds Committee" entails, is this a full two-years? If so, given RFC terms are limited to 2, it's either very quick churn there or pulling up former members who have finished both terms.

On EGRDC roles, presumably there will need to be a formal mechanism for communication and cooperation with the Board of Trustees, AFFCOM, and other bodies. The relationship to the RFCs should also be clarified. Is the EGRDC meant to evaluate individual Regional Strategies and Fund Distribution Plans? Will the EGRDC and/or its members have any responsibility or interaction with specific funding proposals, or do they serve purely as oversight to set broad strategies? They would presumably need some involvement at the individual level, if only to gain information to be able to evaluate funding initiatives. There is still need for improvement on conveying results/feedback regarding the outcomes of approved (including partially approved) grants for RFCs, and it will need further improvement to convey information to the EGRDC as well, especially in both cases as term limits will impose new considerations regarding institutional knowledge. The mentioned shift towards clear metrics is promising in this respect.

On the RFCs, the immediate item that jumps out is that currently some RFCs are unable to find consistent manpower, even though it is an appointment system than can exceed 7 individuals. Elections provide accountability but they also reduce flexibility, so there is a risk that the new system will exacerbate potential dips in participation. On the term limits, there should be some initial flexiblity/adjustment to try and create a situation where the two-year terms do not all end at the same time. If say 3 terms end in one year and 4 the next, there is a better transfer of knowledge and more consistency for applicants than if RFCs completely reform every 2/4 years. Some transitional plans will also be needed initially to clarify how past RFC participation counts for term limits and EGRDC eligibility during the experimental phase. Lastly, current RFC practice is to make any individual receiving a salary from any WMF-related body, be it WMF, a national chapter, or other, ineligible for a position in the RFC. Is this criteria expected to be maintained for the RFCs and/or the EGRDC? Lots to think about in a short time period! Best, CMD (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

CEE Hub View on funds distribution

Note: This statement is based on the previous statement of the CEE Hub on funds distribution from April 2024. It also only addresses the problems around funds distribution and does not cover the other holes (for example who is now in charge of designing and adapting a global Wikimedia strategy) that we now face without a Movement Charter

The non-ratification of the Movement Charter has created a situation that puts into doubt how Wikimedia should continue in terms of becoming a more equitable and effective movement.

The main principles in the recommendations concerning equity and subsidiarity do not have to be implemented with a Movement charter, but can also be achieved by changing the way Wikimedia distributes funds and what goes into the budget planning process of the Wikimedia organisation with the most resources, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF).

For a very long time now the budget planning processes in Wikimedia have been intransparent and presented with little to no discussion, using an interpretation of “community consultations” that does not go well with how collaboration on the Wikimedia platforms usually works. The following proposals are currently high-level (since we don’t have access to the processes of the WMF) and need to be considered jointly, not independently of each other:

• Ensure that information flows in both directions - the current gaps and tools within the communication channels of Wikimedia are too big to facilitate a meaningful exchange of information between the local, regional and global (WMF) level when it comes to decision-making and funding. On one hand the local communities and affiliates do not believe that their opinion really matters on a global level, on the other hand the global level sees non-participation as a normal and to be expected outcome. This needs to change in terms of investing resources on all levels of the Wikimedia pyramid to facilitate an information flow that collects, summarises and shares the needs and requirements from the local to the global level to make budget planning more inclusive, and also explains and holds the global level accountable when it comes to the results and consequences of the decision-making. Not every need or request that is voiced, needs to be fulfilled on a global or regional level, but it should be made clear why not.
• Encourage experimentation and broader planning processes - Wikimedia communities and affiliates can be very effective at experimenting and coming up with new ways of involving Wikimedia in society, but the planning processes need to accommodate and encourage this. By guaranteeing a basic level of funding that does not have to be negotiated every time new funding needs to be agreed, affiliates can instead focus on designing programmes that address issues locally/regionally/globally and offer innovative solutions. It is then for the funds distributor to decide which of these programmes should be pursued, based on the information flow mentioned above.
• Adjust global and regional decision-making where appropriate - entrust national and regional Wikimedia networks with the resources they negotiate or ask for, for those they represent and the wider programmes they design, instead of having global or regional committees run by the WMF decide local programmes.
• Incorporate regional and thematic networks as an essential backbone of the Wikimedia infrastructure - design an appropriate process that treats regional networks as support structures that can rely on the resources they require to render their support, instead of putting the networks and their resources into question every year.
• Design funding regions in a self-determining way, including new regions - the current regional models were designed on a temporary basis by the WMF and need to be revisited in collaboration with the affected communities and affiliates, as well as include those communities who were marginalised by the original design process of the regions.
• Provide access to the required resources in order to facilitate this new budget planning process - for these changes to be meaningful this will also require staff time on a regional and local level to take over responsibilities currently residing within the WMF. This means in reality, with budgets staying as they are (they won’t) that resources will shift away from the WMF towards the hubs and local affiliates. Addressing this upfront will guarantee that there is a foundation in place to make this process work right away, instead of creating the next committee without adequate resources.

On behalf of the Steering Committee of the CEE Hub, Philip Kopetzky (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes from the session at Wikimania, 2024

Summary of notes: Wikimania session on the Resource Distribution

Original notes

Current proposal:

• Keep regional funds committees at the moment to complete their term, and use a new system for new rounds - possibly selected by communities
• Select "global distribution committee" above regional committees: set global guidelines, frameworks, and goals to help decision-making for the movement at regional and thematic levels

General comments:

• Clarity on the problem we are trying to solve (with historical evidence): The proposal should provide clarity on the problems it is trying to address (with evidence of why the system today needs changing) and why the new system would work better.
  • Yael clarified that it was principally: 1. The need for more accountability from the current RFC, 2. To bring a participatory approach to the global level
  • The proposal can better justify this with evidence and clarity of what it means, for instance, to say they are not accountable to the communities. There was a general sense that there needed to be a better understanding of the problems before getting to the solutions.
  • The proposal from scratch group stated the challenge was: improving the current distribution, needing long-term investment for affiliates, engaging equitable committees and decision-making processes, and addressing the trust crisis.
• Budget considerations:
  • Implications for current budget: Some affiliates present were interested in making sure this did not affect current multi-year commitments (it was clarified that it doesn’t and that the WMF has worked with affiliates to clarify the stable budget for the next 3 years).
  • Call for more understanding of what the global budget looks like, how the budget is calculated and allocated today. It was explained that it is based on a complex analysis of historical trends, grantee needs, and inflation. Here is the 22/23 report of fund distribution.
  • How to equip committees to do this analysis? Make it more accessible to key stakeholders.
  • Why is the amount of money allocated to grantmaking not up for discussion?
  • There should be an overview of funding needs and clarity on what is the strategy - what are we wanting to invest in? There is a need more clarification on the movement-wide metrics mentioned in the proposal.
  • The budget should be continuously reviewed based on needs of “beneficiaries” and there was the claim that this was not done today.
  • Perhaps there is a need to allocate separate budgets for chapters, hubs, user groups -- these should not be in the same budget envelope. It is necessary to solve the affiliate system urgently and then minimising competition between chapters, user groups and hubs.
  • It is necessary to set growth limits to grantees

New committees and their members:

• Historical evidence for new decisions: There is a concern that the problems of previous committees would be replicated (FDC, current RFC). These need to be understood, documented, and addressed in the proposal.
• Lean, decision-making focused: It may add a layer of bureaucracy. It is necessary to keep it simple and have direct communication. There should be better connections between affiliates and RFC (or future committees) to avoid current problems (mentioned by a current RFC). Starting with the principles would also be important.
• Accountability + scope: What are the checks and balances so that this body isn't authoritarian? Think about how committee can do resource allocation and work with WMF to decide the pie, not just how to split the pie
• Guarantee the right skills set:
  • There was a call to equip any decision-making body with skills to mediate conflict or difficult discussions. This skill set is often overlooked.  
  • They need to be equipped to have a strategic view and manage their own bias - avoid a tug of war of each member in the Global committee pulling towards their region/country/grantees.
• Representation in the global committee:
  • What does diversity look like in the committee. There should be diversity beyond regional diversity and things like gender. There should be a diversity of experience /movement roles. Also of grant experience.
  • There should be community input into the current WMF regional definition.
  • How to consider those that don't fit into a region. Regional perspective also meant that “other criteria” was lost.
  • How are those in the Movement that currently don’t receive funds represented?
  • What would equity look like? Equality of representation (same number of reps per region) vs. an equitable solution
  • Take into consideration how these conversations affect those that haven’t received funding yet (voice form South Asia region)
  • Is there a need for regional committees? “Why do we have an assumption that we need to have several sub-budgets of the total grants budget? Instead, you could have a panel that decides how everyone gets money from one pot”.
  • What about thematic committees?
  • How to consider movement entities that are not affiliates: ie CIS, Wikitongues.
  • Difference of a new global committee with  FDC: FDC was a more narrow focus, only certain size of grants. Before, there was no process for smaller grants.
• How to select them:
  • Whilst there was some support for elections that seemed to bring more “legitimacy” others thought that elections may not be the best method to guarantee the skill set and more strategic vision needed. It may not provide a representative mix. It was also noted that it is difficult to do with the system of regional anonymity.
  • Perhaps a solution is a mix of election and selection (but by whom? WMF?).
  • If it was an election, how would we also manage any conflicts of interest?
  • Processes are important: to is necessary to understand the rules, workload and skill-set before joining committees
  • There was a proposal to remove the condition of having served on a committee for the first iteration. If they weren’t elected they may not have this representation from their region.
• How to guarantee the right support:
  • Can this be a volunteer role? If so, how to manage the workload. It is hard to find volunteers to do this work.
  • Why are people who have professional roles in the current movement not allowed to serve on committees?
  • Consider reducing term times from 2-3 years.
• Decision-making:
  • How (and if) the quality of the proposals informs the decisions on regional/thematic allocations? What is the loop to make the proper decisions? Taking into consideration things like past spending efficacy, past impact.
  • Could it be possible to use the global committee as an arbitrator of how unspent funds (or, for e.g., funds past 50%) get allocated? Problems highlighted are that this privileges those with professional grant writers who can move faster and the unspent is very low.
  • Intersection between regional and one-on-one decisions - break region into level of growth of affiliates as well.
  • What happens if consensus is not reached in the committee?
• Could there be alternatives to committees?
  • There was one in the starting-from-scratch group around peer-to-peer evaluation among affiliates.

On the process to co-design this:

• Using different methods:
  • Pavan (CIS) proposed a working group. There was a proposal to have each group work to set up their ideal and minimum scenario (ED, volunteers, WMF).
• Red flags: Delphine mentioned the need to set clear expectations of what the WMF can offer (show red flags early on).

Clear timelines: There needs to be clear timelines to engage with the proposal. Having mixed ways to engage would work better. Make the consultation public so that even if people feel they haven’t been consulted personally, they don’t assume it didn’t happen. JStephenson (WMF) (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(end of copied text from the previous conversation space)

Thematic representation

Hi,

The proposal currently speaks about the fund distribution for regional and thematic grants, but the subcommittees proposed are only along regional lines. What about one more subcomm that concerns itself about thematic funds, those that are not related to one region but that are global or have a multi-regional coverage? Ciell (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Editoras Lx view on the Global Resource Distribution Committee proposal

At the core, we feel represented by the need to rethink the distribution of Movement funds.

In general, we welcome the way in which this proposal will bring more transparency to funding processes. This is undoubtedly fundamental for a more equitable distribution of funds.

We also have some questions and concerns, namely that the outcome of this initiative will depend directly on the criteria for selecting the members of this Global Committee. For the time being, believe that it would be essential to add to the criteria for these people to have 1) proven professional experience related to funding/financial management and 2) direct experience working with DEI, given that this proposal could be a good opportunity to respond to a need that was already identified by the community, i.e., to distribute the resources in a more equitable manner, both at a global and regional level. This seems particularly relevant when the Committee's responsibilities include defining global equity and diversity policies. Having a committee of volunteers without these expertise could not only jeopardize the objectives, but also allow for the replication of inequalities that already exist in the current distribution of funds. Therefore, throughout this proposal, we don't feel that there’s enough focus on guaranteeing the sustainability of groups working with gender, a word that doesn't even appear in the document and that could be used to exemplify the importance of this committee.

Still on eligibility, we would have liked to have seen something more specific about the Trust and Safety assessment. Is it only in cases of banning? Or anyone with a complaint? How many complaints would it take for T&S to veto someone's eligibility? Considering that T&S is used as a last resort only when the community cannot take the issues on their own hands, and that these processes take too long, it might allow loopholes in the system.

Another aspect that wasn't clear to us is how new Funds Committees would work, namely thematic, where it seems to us that a gender-specific funding could be included. In the event of such a committee being set up, would this mean that part of the overall budget would be allocated to this Committee to distribute to gender-related projects, and that gender groups would have to compete with each other for these funds ata global level? At the risk of having access to less money than if they entered the regional funds? Or, on the contrary, would it serve as a supplementary fund for gender projects that could be accumulated with other structural funds?

Finally, we also think that it's good that this proposal is opening up space to redefine regions, since, for example, in our N&W Europe region, there are strong asymmetries in income by country (for example, in our case, Portugal vs. Germany or the UK).

On behalf of Wiki Editoras LX, Anita Braga (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikiesfera comments regarding the GRDC proposal

In response to the Global Resource Distribution Committee (GRDC) proposal, several structural issues arise for us:

• Dependence on Volunteer Labor: The reliance on unpaid volunteers perpetuates an extractivist model, overburdening communities without fair compensation. This risks exploiting their goodwill while expecting them to assume significant responsibility. Professional jobs should be done by paid staff, not volunteers in their spare time, especially when we are talking about something so crucial as resource allocation where delays and lack of expertise can have dire consequences.
• Exclusion of Southern Europe: The omission of Southern Europe once again is especially problematic. This region faces economic challenges and cultural marginalization, all of which heighten the need for resource support. Southern Europe suffers from economic disparity within the EU, particularly higher unemployment rates, austerity measures, and social pressures. Omitting it exacerbates existing inequalities and undermines the opportunity for growth in these communities. Furthermore, historical marginalization and Eurocentric biases—favoring wealthier regions like Northern and Western Europe and giving exclusive funds to Eastern Europe—are reinforced by this exclusion, overlooking the contributions Southern European communities could make. Wikimedia communities in countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal are active but need more support to thrive. The competition for resources with Northern Europe prevents leveraging the potential innovations, diversity, and talent that the South of Europe could bring to the movement.
• Focus on Regions Instead of Thematic Areas: The heavy focus on regions instead of thematic areas (such as gender equity, knowledge gaps, or underserved communities) is a structural flaw that limits the effectiveness of the distribution. By not prioritizing cross-regional issues or thematic needs, the proposal risks missing out on opportunities to address global challenges explicitly mentioned in Wikimedia 2030 that cut across borders, such as linguistic diversity, equitable access to knowledge, and systemic biases. This narrow regional focus might also fragment efforts to tackle broad, interconnected problems that require collective action, limiting impact. This is not the path to achieve Knowledge Equity, when there is no distinction or prioritization between a group that seeks funds to focus on content about eg trains and a group that seeks funds to focus on the gendergap. This is a critical mistake.

These core structural issues—the extractivist reliance on unpaid labor, the continued erasure of Southern Europe, and the region-based over thematic focus—must be rectified before electing the committee. Without addressing these foundational flaws, electing the committee would only cement existing inequities and power imbalances, making it harder to course-correct later. We don't need yet another failed model like the FDC. A premature election would give the impression of progress but leave unresolved the deeper problems that could undermine the effectiveness and inclusivity of the resource distribution process. These structural issues must be resolved first.

On behalf of Wikiesfera, PatriHorrillo (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarized of Notes:Wiki Indaba Session on Proposed Changes to Resource Distribution

Original Notes

General comments:

• Clarity on the problem we are trying to solve (with historical evidence):
  • Still a bit unclear what the problem is, that this proposal is meant to address. Subsidiary is good - but is it properly represented in this proposal? The Foundation is in charge of figuring out HOW much money goes to communities. Are we now shifting that process back to the new committee (from the Foundation), to fight amongst themselves about how we’ll share those funds?
  • Generally, there was positive feedback on the service of prioritization the proposal provides
  • A note was made that regional funding committees need not figure out funding recommendations - the challenge is how to convince others that Africa as a region needs more funding recognizing that accountability has shifted.
  • There was a question of whether we need an additional governing body in the first place recognizing the current process takes a long and is perceived as not functional
    • Are we injecting more bureaucracy into an already bureaucratic process? This will significantly slow down the decision-making process.
  • Invitation to imagine a world where the community can sort out resource distribution by themselves.
  • The grants committee needs to be able to make and justify unpopular decisions.
    • Better data in applications.  From FDC days, a problem was the quality of applications - needed better metrics to prove how the funding, if awarded, would be used. So the committee has the information it needs to understand how many resources (how much money) are required to help groups achieve their goals. In FDC days the metrics coming from Africa were not sufficient.
    • More alignment on common priorities. If we have a regional grants committee, they need to be able to answer questions about prioritization - they need to be able to justify why group A gets money and group B doesn't. Those grant decisions need to be aligned with discussions that come out of conferences like this one [ Wiki Indaba], such as the fact that editor retention is a priority for the entire region.
      • How can we start to marry these two - the Afrikan Agenda and this new committee with each other, AND fit that into the conversation about hubs?
  • There is a need to align resource distribution to affiliate recognition processes - ensuring those recognized have resources
• Budget considerations:
  • The proposal is not specific to addressing existing funding gaps in regions and which committee would be addressing that.
  • Before approving new committees there should be enough resources for the committees to work with.
• New committees and their members:
  • There was support for having regional funding committees' decision-making approach and an invite to trust the 7 selected members to make better decisions.
  • The opportunity for the community to select committee members allows for communities in the region to have a voice.
  • Selection Process;
    • Transparency/Openness will be key in supporting people to understand how a decision was made on how a representative was selected. The selection process will need to manage the diversity of opinions.
    • A risk of the community selection process resulting in the same people being presented
      • If you give people trust, they will make a better decision. You need to put the right people in these positions. People who have real experience, who are professionals, not just the typical Wikimedians who tend to be very active and are the ‘typical suspects.’ How do we, as the community, solve this problem, so that we as the community don’t always recommend the same people?
      • A one-size-fits-all approach might not work, we need to localize what we’re doing to fit the region.
    • There needs to be a conflict of interest guidelines and how this will be managed.
    • There needs to be balanced and equal representation in the committees  - geographical, gender, language
    • It was expressed that there would be a challenge in finding the people sitting in the committee - a question on whether the committees should be a volunteer or paid body and the question of how that group is supported.
    • Do elections even make sense if other models like AffCom are self-selecting committees…how much legitimacy do their decisions then hold? How does this approach inform future decision-making bodies?
  • Community Needs - Representatives should understand the different needs of different user groups and different communities
    • There is a need to identify a means by which grantee partners inform the formation of priorities
    • How are the needs of the community captured and aligned with the priority-setting processes?
• What is missing
  • It’s time to have an attitude of experimentation when it comes to collaboration between WMF and the movement. Experimentation is common in the movement.
  • It’s a pilot. Let’s learn what does and doesn’t work.
  • What should be added to the plan is - transparent success indicators. How do we know this pilot has succeeded, or elements of the pilot were successful?
  • Transparency around who has been funded, why, and how. You should have access to this information for every region and for every thematic topic.
• Other topics highlighted
  • Inflation and its effect on recently approved grants
  • Africans receiving grants in local currency and the impact of that on project delivery.
  • There is a need to support emerging groups to understand the grants process

VThamaini (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Summarized notes from Wikiconference North America Session on Proposed Changes to Resource Distribution

Original notes

Global Resource Distribution Committee Proposal

Committee Composition

• Simply determining composition by geographic representation could miss certain kinds of expertise needed at this level (e.g. indigenous knowledge, embracing epistemic diversity in our projects)
• Importance (echoed from feedback on regional fund committees) of having more representation from experienced affiliate leaders — but taking care to look beyond the current Executive Director network, which disproportionately represents larger affiliates in more established regions
• Consideration of multilingual accessibility in the GRDC — will their affairs be carried out in English only?
• Needing to do better on assembling a truly globally representative body — better than the WMF BoT has done.
• Think about the future, who is going to take this forward later? Planning for the next people, a succession plan.

Approach to Regional Allocation

• Concern about global carving up of the pie potentially stoking competition. Perhaps it could be looked at instead through the lens of growth — i.e. GRDC looks at community and resourcing trends (e.g. ability of some regions to leverage more external funding) and determines appropriate percentages of growth for each region.
• Suggestion: growth could be pegged to WMF’s revenue growth
• There could also have a focus on systemic issues (like bandwidth/access barriers in certain regions) — factoring these additional costs and mitigation strategies into allocations for certain regions.

Idea: All affiliates receive automatic base funding, independent from Regional Committee decisions.

• Pros
  • Reduces the complexity of funding decisions that Regional Committees would need to make, if base funding is already available.
  • Resource distribution would still be community-led, provided that communities have power in the decisions around the formula used for base funding.
  • Base funding can be connected to specific, fundamental affiliate budgetary needs, whereas other areas can be left to Regional Committees.
• Cons
  • Risk of formula working well for some regions / affiliates and not others
  • If base funding is only aimed at certain budgetary areas, there may be disagreement among affiliates over what funding needs are more important than others to be included

• Other comments
  • Base funding would presumably be based on some formulaic model, which would need to be co-determined with the Foundation, affiliates, and relevant stakeholders.
    • Relevant factors might include things like: Current staff, affiliate members, inflation rates (as determined by IMF publications and other reliable sources), capacity building needs, and explicit staffing requests.
  • Regional Committees may not even be required in this model at all. Instead, funding changes year over year could also be formulaically determined, provided we have a process for co-deciding on that formula with relevant stakeholders as well.

Strategic Lens / Investment Priorities / Thematics

• Problem and proposal: Observation that, while the Foundation seems to have been iteratively adapting its approach to movement strategy in response to the changing times, that community resourcing feels stuck in a snapshot of movement strategy from 3 years ago (the 47 MS initiatives – many of which lack clear implementation plans, metrics etc.) What if instead, the global body worked with the Foundation/Board on establishing a single unified thematic vision – or set of visions?
• Possible solution: The single or set of unified thematic vision/s would not replace the current known thematics (culture and heritage, education, diversity) that the affiliates are already working on, but be perpendicular to them. Instead of "thematics", these would be "visions" to guide initiatives on the current areas of work, e.g. disinformation, climate change & sustainability, gender, etc. The Global Resource Distribution Committee would understand these proposals as "incubators" and, then, judge and fund the ones that would address and solve better the problems indicated.
• Organization:
  • For affiliates: These so-called visions would help affiliates to organize themselves better internally, connect to the global community via a shared vision goal, and also allow them to open up for external funding via important, globally shared, topics of impact.
  • For the committee: There was no discussion about the composition of the body that would come up and/or analyze this thematic proposal. However, it was mentioned that it would be important to have people with epistemic knowledge about these topics (visions) and that it should be more diverse. Participants indicated that it should probably be composed of people who already work on these topics within the affiliates. Another important takeaway is that the committee would have to understand this more as "investments" and "incubators", and not as simply "funding". In terms of sustainability, it would be important to think about the future and who is going to take this forward later and have a succession plan.
• Reporting:
  • When discussing how to measure and/or judge these proposals, participants debated how this would address the long-standing problem of the current committees excessively focusing on outputs and not on impact, which was indicated as what the affiliates really care about.

Regional Fund Committee Proposal

In the current proposal, Regional Committees would set regional strategy, standards, goals and metrics, in line with the policies set by the GRDC. They would determine the appropriate regional approach to funding distribution (not necessarily grantmaking!) and design the process for submitting and reviewing applications (if applicable). Regional Committees would be elected through a community election process.

Current proposal: Named challenges and possible solutions from participants

Election process, committee skills and composition, loss of committee knowledge, conflicts of interest

• Election process for Regional Fund Committees is not yet defined.
  • Solution: Would a hybrid model of elected / appointed work? This could be similar to how the WMF Board of Trustees is composed.
  • Solution: Rotation of members on committee to make sure we're getting different perspectives over time
• What skills are important for Regional Committee members?
  • Solution: Perhaps 1. accountability (2 elected), 2. experience and skill in grant evaluation (2 appointed from previous committee makeup), and 3, diversity (invited/appointed)
  • Solution: Composition may need to vary from region to region. Regional Committees in regions with established/larger affiliates may have different needs and expertise compared to regions with newer/smaller affiliates.
• Loss of Regional Committee knowledge - retaining previous committee members is important for sustaining committee knowledge. Also, completely redoing committee could lead to a loss of the committee knowledge that already exists
  • Solution: Some committee members could be retained for a longer period (e.g. some committee members serve longer terms than others).
  • Solution: Current committee members could serve in an advisory role, or could be invited to apply for new Regional Committees, or some could be appointed to ensure prior knowledge is brought into these new groups.
• Need to come to an agreement about accountability v COI--if we want to bring in people who are better accountable to affiliates, how does that interact with COI? These people may be better suited and more accountable and are also more likely to have COI
  • No specific solution for this problem proposed during discussion.

Alternative proposal ideas from participants

Context on challenges with current and proposed Regional Committee process:

• Some affiliates don't feel like regional fund committees have enough knowledge about what it means to run an affiliate (Chris notes they often have good programmatic knowledge related to common movement activities, however.)
• Decisions may not reflect the kind of knowledge that's needed to understand evaluation criteria to review proposals. Some decisions feel arbitrary.

Funding Committees are composed of representatives from all affiliates.

• Pros
  • Would resolve the issue about lack of knowledge of running affiliates
  • Would create a body that has institutional memory and covers the diversity of affiliate operations and needs.
  • Affiliates could work together in this body to create and apply rubrics for funding that could help groups organize within their regional/thematic areas
  • Body is not just about review but about creating shared understanding and other resources
• Cons
  • Would a model like this be too many people/to difficult to run and reach and consensus? Feels time and resource intensive
  • EDs may not have time to get involved in this. Varied levels of interest
  • Potential for COIs / groups working in informal blocs / affiliate conflicts would complicate decisionmaking.
  • Historically, we've used models where some affiliates have a seat at the table (FDC for example). Biggest affiliates in the past ended up monopolizing decisions, so we need to keep that in mind
  • Would need to address challenges with newer affiliates potentially being excluded or having less access to funding compared to existing or larger affiliates.

Fund Committees are composed of representatives from all affiliates who currently receive funding, or who will apply for it in the near future.

• Similar pros and cons as above, but would yield smaller committees who actually have a declared stake/interest in funding.

Other participant discussion related to Funding Committees

• Expectations for committee review
  • Sometimes the committees receive applications listing community members as involved in the grant, and those people don't know they're being listed
• Needs for grantees
  • Grantees should have automatic access to the Wikipedia Library, as it is broadly applicable to nearly all funded programmatic work.
  • Would like there to be more regular opportunities for grantees and Funding Committees to interact to have shared understanding of affiliate work

BVershbow (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback at Wikimania

I don't believe this proposal has a significant set of improvements compared to Wikimania, when this was also discussed. Some discussion about the proposal was posted here. My personal main concerns are the region-politics that this would introduce/reinforce in the budget conversations, and the strain that this would place on the scarce recourse of 'volunteers willing to engage with budgeting' (I don't think we could realistically have people be a member of both a regional committee and the global committee, if we take COI seriously). I would like to point to the alternative proposal that was placed there (although it has plenty if shortcomings too, it was intended to stimulate some creative thinking - which it probably wasn't very successful at given the lack of responses). In short: the alternative proposal is to not create an additional committee but create a process with the existing stakeholders. It looks like the abovementioned copying hasn't happened (yet), so apologies if this creates a duplicate! Effeietsanders (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)