Talk:Carta Comunitaria a la Región LAC

Translate

Hi, could you please translate the page into English. Thanks. NANöR (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@NANöR: Thanks to User:Bluerasberry here's the translation: Carta_Comunitaria_a_la_Región_LAC/en Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 21:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Specific to LAC or not?

These sound like issues that could afec tmany regions. Is there a recent overview of these issues across all of the regional groups? You seem to be referencing collected evaluations of the results from the past time period (past year?), could you link to those evals, or is it personal experience of the author? –SJ talk  06:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sj! Although initially intended for the LAC region, from the draft phase of the letter to its announcement, several people from other regions indicated that such problems are occurring in their regions as well. Everything in the letter is based on subjective observations, but anyone could intuit its certainty or not. For example:

• Únicamente aquellos individuos con título en gestión de proyectos pueden tener una solicitud de fondos aprobada - It is only necessary to see how the application form for funds is set up. This may possibly benefit those who are proficient in project management, but not volunteers who lack such expertise.
• [...]contexto histórico detrás de los proyectos Wikimedia - This is a problem in all regions: lacking expertise, program officers approve (or deny) applications on the grounds that they may benefit the Wikimedia volunteerism. The reality is that they generate burden to the current volunteerism and the applicants, once their project is finished, abandon the Wikimedia project leaving the damage to be solved by other people. Discussions can be found in here, on English Wikipedia, a similar discussion happened at English Wikivoyage but I can't find it, my bad.
• [...] Temáticas subrepresentadas - The vast majority of applicants in the region have established programs related to indigenous languages for the establishment of new Wikimedia projects. This is also nurtured by the thematic focus of the program officer. While interesting, it sidesteps the real problem that has been seen with established Wikimedia communities and that their content and users have not been successful.
• Numerosos reportes sin revisar - Although the way in which the page was displayed has improved, there are currently ten reports that have not been reviewed. Some of them are a year old.
• Decisiones unilaterales [...] and Incumplimiento de tiempos estipulados en los procesos de revisión - In these two proposals the program officer refused to comply with the review process. This can be interpreted as a conflict of interest on my part as it affects me but it also has a hidden meaning: the program officer can bypass the stipulated review process at will.

Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 08:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is interesting and so helpful. I'd like to see more detail about the new language projects, if it exists.

I wonder if we could organize a group of coordinators of healthy long-term projects to provide their own review of cool or burdensome projects [many cool ones don't apply for grants; many burdensome ones don't need to be, but are formulated in a way that collapses without funds]. –SJ talk  19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sj: Regarding the new projects, I understand that the LAC programme officer funded two projects that have no impact on the Wikimedia movement, solely because of their thematic focus. One of them is maintained by the only one who knows the language (and has a position paid for by a grant). I would not like to make a public indictment of these projects, but I could pass it on by mail if it is of interest. Regarding the other thing, yes, it is necessary. At least I have repeatedly been told that supporting Wikivoyage has no impact and is of no use, and history has proven otherwise. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 04:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank You & Response

Dear @Galahad,

Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective and feedback, both here and in our two calls last month. As I shared on our call, I’m sorry that this has been a difficult experience for you personally, and I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate to improve our processes.

Regarding your specific points, let me share here what I shared verbally:

Funds dissemination and Regional Funds Committees You note that applying for a grant through the Wikimedia Community Fund requires a project management degree. I understood from our call the spirit of what you meant: that the proposal requirements - particularly for small grants - seem so onerous or laborious that it can feel like one needs a project management degree just to apply. I’m sorry that this is how the proposal process has felt and we’re currently working to simplify the proposal process. As you know, the role of the Regional Program Officers is to support Affiliates through the proposal process - the intent is to engage in conversations that help answer any questions and also to help strengthen the proposals so they have a stronger likelihood of being approved.

With regards to the expertise and contextual knowledge of the Regional Funds Committees and Program Officers, Regional Committees and Program Officers regularly engage in conversations with our grantee partners. These conversations are thoughtfully planned and structured to ensure a direct connection between us and our partners and to create a deeper understanding of their needs.

Our goal is to establish Regional Fund Committees comprising diverse individuals, including seasoned Wikimedians, new volunteers with innovative ideas, both affiliated and non-affiliated members, mission-aligned experts in relevant fields, and people with a contextual understanding of the region. In the first two years, we were fortunate to have a newcomer who was a member of Wikimedia Small Projects as a Regional Fund committee member in the LAC region. We also strive to ensure that our application review process incorporates the expertise of WMF staff in the specific region or thematic area, to ensure that we have a wider perspective of the work proposed.

As you know, the updated General Support Fund proposal review framework is aligned with our Movement Strategy, which emphasizes the importance of knowledge equity impact. The framework considers the involvement of underrepresented groups or contributions of underrepresented content. It aims to provide guidance to both applicants and Regional Committee members about prioritization and decision-making processes.

Program Officers communicate regularly with people, groups, and affiliates from their respective regions. For example, we have conducted regular one-on-one meetings for Wikimedia Small Projects since 2021, per the document we shared with you. During some of these meetings, staff experts from WMF, committee members, and volunteers from the region have provided assistance and guidance to support your efforts.

Internal processes We have heard from you and others the need for an appeals process for the General Support Fund, which we are in the process of designing and proposing to Regional Funds Committees. We aim to share a proposed appeals review process during this fiscal year, and will let you know when it is available so you can provide your input.

For the Rapid Fund program, given the number of applications we receive we cannot offer an appeals process. We recommend that Rapid Fund applicants thoroughly review the feedback provided by WMF staff and Regional committee members, and after reviewing the feedback,that they work with the Regional Program Officer to make any necessary changes to their application open it to the community for further feedback. By doing so, they can improve their chances of being selected for funding in the next cycle.

Regarding timeliness, I’m sorry that you experienced delayed responses, and we are committed to holding to published deadlines. I acknowledge that during some periods of the year we are more delayed than usual - and this is particularly true of Rapid Funds due to their volume. We’ll work to better adhere to our own deadlines or propose adjustments when needed, and I invite you to help hold us accountable here.

Thank you, again, for your feedback and your commitment to improving the volunteer experience.

Yael RWeissburg (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)