[foundation-board] OKF-DE proposal

[Becky Hogge]

Hi Laura

Thanks for this update, it's really useful. Since we're all probably
winding down for Christmas from tomorrow, I'll simply relay parts of
your progress report to Daniel in Berlin when I see him, and give him
a flavour of the discussion we've had on list so far on ways to
improve the proposal. Then we can pick this up in the New Year.

Happy holidays all

B

On 23 December 2011 11:52, Laura James <laura.james at okfn.org> wrote:
> Just to pick up on a couple of things...
>
> Jason agreed to follow up with Omidyar on the sub grant question.
>
> The Kat/Rufus/me call produced a draft plan for how local interest
> groups could develop up into Chapters, and also a proposal for how
> seed funding to support chapter formation might be organised (subject
> to the sub grant question).  Kat is writing up our rough notes on that
> - then there will be a clean proposal circulated to the board for
> feedback.  We did not manage to address the question of other forms of
> funding and need to meet again to discuss that; this should probably
> wait until we have clarity on the Omidyar terms.
>
> Laura
>
>
>
>
> On 23 December 2011 11:42, Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22 December 2011 13:08, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Becky,
>>>
>>> Thanks for pulling this together -- I'd held off on the response as
>>> I'd been initial liason ...
>>
>> Indeed. Thanks for the clarifications and encouragement below. It
>> would be useful to get the perspective of other Board members before I
>> take this to Daniel.
>>
>> Response continues...
>>
>>> On 17 December 2011 10:48, Becky Hogge <becky.hogge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Further to our discussion of the OKF-DE proposal at this week's Board
>>>> meeting, here's the feedback I would propose we send to OKF-DE. As
>>>> discussed, I am in Berlin later this month, and happy to connect with
>>>> Daniel Dietrich if that's helpful for OKF-DE to understand our
>>>> concerns.
>>>
>>> That would be great.
>>>
>>>> The proposal I'm talking about is here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fKvdB7r0a3QpADFt72UCPmJgXAf4-M3qq-clsLST6HA/edit?hl=en_GB
>>>> (shared with okfn.board)
>>>>
>>>> Since the meeting, I've also had a chance to look at the proposed
>>>> budget for the project here, which was linked to from the document:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApbQZxbNri2RdFZEdE9XMmoxdWpqR01RempLTW1GX1E&hl=en_GB#gid=0
>>>>
>>>> Sidenote: I missed the budget initially, as it was just a link in the
>>>> document. I'd prefer it if all vital information the Board needs to
>>>> review for any given proposal is contained in a single document.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> Okay, so here's the feedback:
>>>>
>>>> 1) The proposal needs to be clearer about what it's asking for, and
>>>> what it intends to deliver against that. Right at the top it needs to
>>>> say "We're asking for x euros to fund us for y time to achieve z" This
>>>> is not just window-dressing - OKF Board central need to be able to
>>>> look at this document at the end of 2012 and evaluate whether the work
>>>> following from this proposal was successful. Clarity here will aid
>>>> accountability down the line.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> ---Having dived into the materials, it's still not clear to me how
>>>> much they want and what they're going to do with it. There's a
>>>> document called "2 year operational plan" (why 2 years, when the grant
>>>> is for one year?), linked out to from the proposal
>>>
>>> I think because the grant is one part of their longer strategic plan.
>>> That is, that strategic 2 year plan was not pulled together just for
>>> the grant/loan from OKFN central.
>>
>> As noted below, the strategic 2 year plan is cryptic to me, by which I
>> mean it makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I'd be interested to
>> know how you interpret it.
>>>
>>>> (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtMts_R3W2qxdEpHdFR4b20ycG12S183VDk5ZUJBZFE&hl=en_GB#gid=0)
>>>> that is cryptic to me. And the budget appears to suggest that in the
>>>> worst case we give them 60K Euros in 2012, and in the best, we give
>>>> them that plus 37.5K euros for a chapter coordinator in 2012.
>>>
>>> Yes. I have to say I don't know where the higher set came from. 60k
>>> was already supposed to be max.
>>>
>>>> 2) Matching the funding: Looking at the budget, OKF-DE appear to be
>>>> saying they have guaranteed income of 35K euros from two organisations
>>>> labelled KfW and OIW. They also think it's possible to raise a maximum
>>>> of 120K euros from other organisations. But they don't appear willing
>>>> to adjust their outgoings depending on how successful they are.
>>>> Instead, they posit that in the worst case scenario, they will lose
>>>> 41.25K euros, and in the best, they'll end the year 116.24K euros in
>>>> the black. The former seems unfeasible and the latter seems like a lot
>>>> of cash to be sitting on. I don't think they've thought this through.
>>>
>>> It may be that budget spreadsheet is not as up to date as it should be
>>> (in general the OKFN DE board have a fair degree of competence here --
>>> e.g. they have Daniel, Marcus Dapp, Christian Kreutz -- the later two
>>> having experience in running organizations). I imagine that with
>>> constructive feedback of the kind we are generating here they should
>>> be able to respond and adapt/improve as necessary quite rapidly.
>>>
>>>> My recommendation is that we ask the OKF-De team to address the
>>>> proposal in these two areas. Essentially, we probably want them to
>>>> come back with a proposal that is shorter and clearer more generally
>>>> plus a budget that adds up in the worst case scenario.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> We also need to think about how to encourage sustainability. One idea
>>>> might be to release the budget in two tranches, with the second
>>>> tranche contingent on them achieving the matched income they say they
>>>> can achieve from KfW and OIW. This could be a principle we apply more
>>>> generally in making grants to chapters
>>>
>>> Yes. I do know that, sadly, one item in their budget has not come
>>> through (the Germany Data Portal which I believe went to Fraunhofer
>>> (though Fraunhofer are also using CKAN!)). That said, I also
>>> understand they already have revenue from some sources not listed
>>> there. I think it is very clear that they need to update and improve
>>> the budget sheet.
>>
>> Would you be in favour of making the second tranche of funding
>> contingent on finding matched funds? What do other Board members think
>> about this idea? What about those closer to the ground? Did it come up
>> in the call yesterday?
>>>
>>>> Two things that someone closer to the ground needs to do on our side
>>>> before we can progress this is:
>>>> -Provide the Board with a rough breakdown of the demands they expect
>>>> on the Omidyar pot in 2012 (how many other chapters do we want/need to
>>>> fund in that year? How much are we reserving for core?) - Is Kat the
>>>> best person to approach here?
>>>
>>> Laura, Kat and I had a chapter review and planning session yesterday.
>>> Laura and Kat had some notes from this. We also worked on the (still
>>> very alpha) chapters budget:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aon3JiuouxLUdFZSUUZFZlVwZEwyNXdMRlhDQjNQeGc
>>
>> I appreciate this doc is in alpha so won't comment on it yet, but to
>> note that loan idea is persisting in it - can we have some background
>> here? How much due diligence has been done on what this would mean for
>> OKF as an organisation? Are bodies who loan money regulated in some
>> way which we need to consider? What would the management overhead of
>> loaning be, as set against that of granting? What is the strategic
>> thinking behind offering this as a loan, not a grant?
>>
>>>> -Get clarity on whether we need a change to the Omidyar contract in
>>>> order to fund chapters like this - Is Jason the best person to
>>>> approach here?
>>>
>>> I would note that we could always route around the sub-grant issue by
>>> simply making direct payments to people the chapter or regional group
>>> suggests.
>>
>> This is setting off alarm bells for me. Given the management load we
>> are already saddling, I'm worried that taking on more to manage
>> day-to-day cashflow of other chapters is not feasible. I'd like to
>> hear what others think, and I'd like to know who has been tasked with
>> approaching Omidyar on this point.
>>
>> However, definitely worth clarifying with Omidyar on general
>>> point.
>>>
>>>> If Rufus is confident that the two points above are actionable, then
>>>> we can undertake them in parallel to advising OKF-DE on their revised
>>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>>>> Finally, if we expect to receive proposals like this from other
>>>> chapters over the coming years, I'd be pleased to work with Kat on
>>>> developing guidelines for how they should be structured, so that this
>>>> process can be as painless as possible for all concerned in the
>>>> future.
>>>
>>> That would be great Becky. It would be really useful to have you on a
>>> call like the one yesterday which Laura and Kat had organized.
>>
>> To be clear, I'd rather keep my involvement targeted to providing
>> advice on the specific point of disbursing money to chapters. I do not
>> want to become part of the operational team on this, or any other, OKF
>> project.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Becky
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-board mailing list
>> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board