Global Resource Distribution Committee/Creation of the interim GRDC/Candidates/Matthewvetter

Matt Vetter (Matthewvetter)

Preferred name	Matt Vetter
Language capabilities (native or professional / advanced / basic)	English (native); Spanish (basic)
Region and country you identify with	North America; USA
Interim GRDC seats you are running for and why (regional volunteer/thematic volunteer)	North America (Regional volunteer)
Do you have any topic or area of specialization within the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters)	Education, research, outreach
Have you ever held any role or position, either current or past, in the Wikimedia movement? (max 1000 characters)	Current regional committee member North America for the past 3+ years
Why are you interested in the interim GRDC and what can you contribute? (max 1000 characters)	I am interested in joining the interim GRDC because it aligns with my academic and professional goals, particularly in promoting open knowledge and ensuring equitable resource distribution. I've also seen first hand how the funding decisions from the regional committees can make or break important projects to the movement. I want to be part of a solution for ensuring and enacting subsidiarity, participatory decision-making and equal opportunities across regions and among new and returning affiliates.
Please share any volunteering or professional experience relevant for the interim GRDC (role, organization, years) (max 1000 characters)	I have served on the North America regional committee since its inception. As an academic researcher, I also have a strong understanding of Wikimedia policy (e.g. my latest article) as well as the challenges and issues facing community growth. I am the co-chair of the CCCC Wikipedia Initiative and WikiProject Writing, member of Wikipedia & Education user group. Organizer of Wikimedia + Libraries Convention 2022 . I am also this year's co-chair for WikiWorkshop, and have relevant experience with OpenReview and Fluxx. Finally, and more locally, I am a committee member of the Indiana Arts Council, a nonprofit serving Indiana County, Pennsylvania to promote the arts.,
Describe your skills and experience relevant to the interim GRDC (max 1500 characters)	I have over three years experience on the regional grants committee for North America (having serves since its inception in 2021). I also participated in forums and open discussions related to the establishment of GRDC at Wikimania 2024 and WikiCon NA 2024. As an academic researcher, I study Wikipedia-based education, as well as Wikipedia culture and policy.
Describe your understanding of the Wikimedia Movement's current resource distribution process. (max 1500 characters)	My current understanding is that while the principles of subsidiarity and participatory decision-making have been embraced as guiding values for resource distribution, there remain obstacles related to equitable distribution and participation. The WMF Board of Trustees makes decisions regarding annual budgets for each region. Those budgets are then communicated to regional grant program officers as a framework for distribution amounts. These numbers are communicated to regional grant committee members, who are then tasked with evaluating and determining the best use of the funds - how to support affiliates, returning grantees, and new grantees. One of the major issues I have witnesses as a regional grants committee member for North America has been the lack of funds devoted to new grantees, given the existing strain on resources going to returning affiliates. Additionally, new grantees are often disadvantaged because they lack the grant-making knowledge and understanding of resource distribution.
How do you think the GRDC could improve the current situation and which priorities do you think it should have? (max 1500 characters)	The current situation related to community resource distribution can be improved in a few different ways. First, I think there are opportunities for training, resource development, and knowledge sharing as it relates to EXTERNAL funding. This may seem antithetical to the purpose of the committee, but resource distribution need not only be defined by outright funding. THE GDRC and regional committees can do more to support affiliates and individuals in pursuing external grant opportunities through training, resource development and other means of support. Second, the GDRC needs to create a culture of support for NEW grantees. In my work as a regional committee member, I have witnessed firsthand how innovative proposals coming from first-time applicants often are not funded. This has a negative impact on community growth since it discourages new contributors and contributions. What's needed is a separate but parallel process for new grantees and returning grantees so that they can be evaluated separately.
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)	Accomplishments - ) Stability of regional grants committees and the participatory decision-making process. Stability means that there should be more attention directed to committee member burnout and refresh, adequate training processes, and overall support. The regional committees are devoting so much time and energy to this process, and haven't been adequately supported or thanked, especially in this last round of critique (and accusations from affiliates about the lack of accountability). ) Equitable and transparent distributions among regions using new models for measuring regional needs and economic diversity. There is currently a lack of transparency around the distribution model (e.g. how/what budgets are allotted to regions). This needs to change so that there can be fair evaluation of the differences among funding. ) Create pathways for NEW grantees while supporting returning grantees. This is essential for community growth. We need programs and resources to support innovative new grantees so they are encouraged in joining the movement. This does not mean we cannot support returning affiliates and projects. But we must create separate tracks in order to encourage fair evaluations. ) Finally, we must work to encourage affiliates and individuals to pursue external funding by sharing knowledge, creating new resources, and other strategies.