> Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my own view, and not in the
> capacity of the FDC chair).
To be extra clear, as Dariusz was: anything I say in this thread is my
own view, not a statement in the capacity of WMF Trustee.
Freeform discussion of what is possible is important, and I hope
peo
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
> Thanks SJ for these thoughts, it's gratifying and encouraging that we have
> a WMF trustee on the case :-)
The Board FDC liaisons are putting more thought into this than I am;
I'm just brainstorming quickly on the mailing list and encourag
Thanks SJ for these thoughts, it's gratifying and encouraging that we have
a WMF trustee on the case :-)
While getting chapter staff to likewise review reports is a good idea,
there are two potential problems that I can see with it:
1. Chapter staff may be unwilling to criticise the reports of o
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Merz wrote:
>> > I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative
I find it distracting, though currently accurate, that this is framed
as a "WMF staff" focus. The report makes a point of taling about "FDC
staff" instead.
How can we s
hi,
a few thoughts:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Merz wrote:
> > I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative
> > metrics over everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate
> > side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable
> > act
> I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative
> metrics over everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate
> side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable
> activities rather than the most effective and worthwhile activities.
> Hopefully this w
Hi Katy,
thanks for sharing.
As a minor suggestion, to me it would be helpful if you could be a little
more specific than 'we' in your responses. Are you in those instances
speaking for your own (with your specific expertise), for a group of WMF
staffers, for the FDC, for the whole Foundation etc
Given that this is an assessment that is being performed by paid staff, I
think it's unreasonable to think that the staff would issue more than very
mild criticism ("Your report is so great it makes everyone else look
terrible!"), even if the report was so poor as to deserve criticism. I'm
not say
Katy Love, 11/06/2013 22:52:
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Staff_summary/Progress_report_form/Q1
Funny: «WMF notes [stats]», «WMFR claims [stats]».
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikime
Greetings, everyone!
Are you curious about what the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Round 1
grantees have been working on these last few months? If you haven't already
seen the first progress reports submitted by the FDC Round 1 grantees,
come on over and check them out! To find these first q
10 matches
Mail list logo
