Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive
Seb35, 26/04/2014 14:11: invent neologisms and terminology The five pillars have only been codified to a degree on global level, so one may care or not, but this would clearly be original research. And I say so as someone whose first edit in 2005 added some neologisms to Wiktionary; again, more forgivable than on Wikipedia. Building modern terminologies is important, [Semantic] MediaWiki provides an efficient and cheap infrastructure that more language academies/bodies should adopt. http://tieteentermipankki.fi/wiki/Termipankki:Etusivu/en Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive
Here are some bad and some good news... The bad news is that I've finally realized why I needed a separate wiki for data. It's about restrictive Ethnologue's ToS [1]. In other words, I could say to myself just: Welcome back to the wonderful world of licenses! So, I've created a private wiki with some of the data. Anyone willing to join me in data analysis work is welcome; I'll create accounts on that wiki. Said so, I urge to all relevant persons to contact me privately with preferred username. (And if I have to be more precise, this is related to the languages, chapters, WMF and its funds.) I also need one or more persons willing to code in Python. Good news is that I've realized that I did good job in coding, with a number of relevant categorizations; which triggers a bad news because I'd need some time to get familiarized with my code again. The data about the number of not represented languages on Wikimedia projects: * 23 languages with more than 10 millions of speakers * 230 languages with more than one million of speakers * 866 languages with more than 100 thousands of speakers * 1831 languages with more than 10 thousands of speakers The largest language with the project in Incubator has 38 millions of speakers. [1] http://www.ethnologue.com/terms-use On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: Hei, As a supporter of language diversity, I'm a bit sad of this thread because some people find we should not engage in language revitalisation because: 1/ it's not explicitely in our scope (and I don't fully aggree: sum of all knowledge also includes minority cultures expressed in their languages, as shown by Hubert Laska with the Kneip), 2/ it's too difficult/expansive to save most languages. Although there are obviously great difficulties, I find it shouldn't stop us to support or partnership with local languages institutions, particularly if there are interested people or volunteers: we are not obliged to select the 3000 more spoken languages and set up parterships to save these 3000 languages, but we can support institutions or volunteers _interested_ in saving some small language on a case-by-case basis (Rapa Nui, Chickasaw, Skolt Sami, Kibushi, whatever) if minimum requirements are met (writing system and ISO 639 code for a website, financial ressources for a project), i.e. crowdsourcing the language preservation between Wikimedia, volunteers, speakers, and institutions. When multilinguism in the cyberspace is discussed by linguists, Wikipedia is almost every time shown as *the* better successful example. As discussed in this thread, perhaps some projects (Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikidata) are easier to set up in these languages and this could be a first step, but these will only preserve these as non-living objects of interest, at the contrary of a Wikibook/Wikipedia/Wikinews/Wikiversity where speakers could practice the language, invent neologisms and terminology, create corpora for linguists, and show the language to other interested people in the world (I'm sure there are). As an example in France, Wikimédia France has quite good relationships with the DGLFLF (Delegation for the French language and languages of France), and this institution census 75 languages in France, whose 2/3 are overseas [1]. The DGLFLF contributed ressources on some small languages and multilinguism on Wikibooks [2] and Commons [3]. [1] (fr) http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/lgfrance/lgfrance_presentation.htm [2] (fr) https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer [3] (fr)(mul) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:États_généraux_du_multilinguisme_dans_les_outre-mer ~ Seb35 20.04.2014 05:46:47 (CEST), Milos Rancic kirjoitti: There are ~6000 languages in the world and around 3000 of them have more than 10,000 speakers. That approximation has some issues, but they are compensated by the ambiguity of the opposition. Ethnologue is not the best place to find precise data about the languages and it could count as languages just close varieties of one language, but it also doesn't count some other languages. Not all of the languages with 10,000 or more speakers have positive attitude toward their languages, but there are languages with smaller number of speakers with very positive attitude toward their own language. So, that number is what we could count as the realistic final number of the language editions of Wikimedia projects. At the moment, we have less than 300 language editions. * * * There is the question: Why should we do that? The answer is clear to me: Because we can. Yes, there are maybe more specific organizations which could do that, but it's not about expertise, but about ability. Fortunately, we don't need to search for historical examples for comparisons; the Internet is good enough. I still remember infographic of the time while all of us thought that Flickr is
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
it is an interesting idea, but I definitely would narrow it down to F/L/OSS-related organizations, as we have a very specific set of values as a movement. dj pundit On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: imo WMF is a mid-to-large sized IT company operating on a non-pofit basis. Whoever has _both_ the skillset (and history) of reviewing IT companies and charities, both types above 100+ employees can be considered capable of reviewing WMF as a whole. Cheers, Balazs 2014.04.25. 21:17, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net ezt írta: Hi Risker, Thanks for your thoughts. Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an independent third party review if it feels that there is not the necessary ability for the FDC to produce its own assessment. I'm personally curious to know whether you have any suggestions of third parties that might be able to carry out this sort of review, considering the requisite knowledge of the Wikimedia movement? It might be an option worth thinking about in future years. Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 25 April 2014 15:17, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Hi Risker, Thanks for your thoughts. Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an independent third party review if it feels that there is not the necessary ability for the FDC to produce its own assessment. I'm personally curious to know whether you have any suggestions of third parties that might be able to carry out this sort of review, considering the requisite knowledge of the Wikimedia movement? It might be an option worth thinking about in future years. Thanks, Mike Quite bluntly, the WMF shouldn't be asking the FDC to review a plan that does not include a request for funds: it is outside of the FDC mandate, which is to recommend the disbursement of a specific funding envelope using specific criteria. I would have hoped that the FDC would have the courage to say no, sorry, this is outside our scope, but I understand that it's hard to step away from such a juicy-looking opportunity. However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not have the authority to delegate its role. If it is unable to carry out the task effectively within its own group and structure, it should either be refusing the task, or it should be reporting to the Board of Trustees that it is unable to carry out the requested tasks with respect to the WMF. It should not be contracting with one of its own supplicants to review the proposal of another, particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. It's all well and good for your members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups, your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Hi Risker, On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not have the authority to delegate its role. I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking WMDE to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for WMDE from last round: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a separate document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None of the role of the FDC itself has been delegated here. particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here. It's all well and good for your members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups, your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility. I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, but I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this? Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Hi Risker, On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not have the authority to delegate its role. I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking WMDE to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for WMDE from last round: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a separate document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None of the role of the FDC itself has been delegated here. The potential problem is straightforward. Look at the FDC recommendation for WMDE in the same round as the staff assessment you linked; they are very similar - same conclusions, even similar or identical language. A little analysis would reveal how often the FDC deviates from staff assessments, perhaps someone has done that already? If the answer is not often, then pointing out that the FDC writes its own recommendations is disingenuous - the staff assessments are clearly quite influential in the final decision. particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here. I agree here. In the context of the WMF and WMDE seeking approval for funding from the FDC, staff of both organizations have unavoidable conflicts when performing assessments of the proposals. Obviously in this immediate situation the WMF are not asking for funding approval. But obviously there is the hope that eventually they will be, and it seems likely that the practices established in this round may be carried forward. It's all well and good for your members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups, your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility. I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, but I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this? This is definitely a tangent, but a real point. The FDC members come from interested parties. Conflict is unavoidable, no matter how careful you are. It's built into the structure of the committee and there may be no superior alternative. The stakeholders want a vote in where the money goes. That's not unreasonable, but there are risks. Mitigating those risks would take serious reform, and I don't see much appetite for that right now. On the subject of consultants performing the staff assessment.. It's not necessary for consultants to be deeply embedded in open access, free software culture or the tech non-profit world. The work to be done is not rocket science. There are many consultants experienced in reviewing grant proposals for non-profits. At worst the assessment would be more quantitative than those of the past; that may be a feature rather than a bug, as it allows the FDC to develop its own qualitative assessment without outsourcing that work. The WMF and the FDC can afford genuine outside help, and the cost is well worth it if it neutralizes many potential sources of future conflict. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Nathan skrev 2014-04-27 19:09: n The potential problem is straightforward. Look at the FDC recommendation for WMDE in the same round as the staff assessment you linked; they are very similar - same conclusions, even similar or identical language. A little analysis would reveal how often the FDC deviates from staff assessments, perhaps someone has done that already? If the answer is not often, then pointing out that the FDC writes its own recommendations is disingenuous - the staff assessments are clearly quite influential in the final decision. This is not how it works. The assessment gives some key things not to be overlooked by FDC. But the discussion we have is not starting from the assessment but from our own observation. And the written recommendation is complied from comments from the FDC members (where there also must be several of us agreeing on the point). Then in in many cases we have the same opinion among us mebers and beteen us and the assessment This is definitely a tangent, but a real point. The FDC members come from interested parties. Conflict is unavoidable, no matter how careful you are. Can you expand on this, why is there a conflict, that I am involved in FDC discussion for all entities except WMSE (where I am i the election committe, not the board) and for whos proposal I do not take part Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 April 2014 12:37, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Hi Risker, On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not have the authority to delegate its role. I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking WMDE to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for WMDE from last round: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a separate document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None of the role of the FDC itself has been delegated here. Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. The FDC doesn't have the authority to delegate that, either. particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here. There's no money involved in this proposal, in case you haven't noticed. Your job isn't programmatic review, and you should have rejected the request. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all, and tell the WMF to go to the community as a whole, or recommend to the Board that a completely independent party do the programmatic review. The amount of feedback that is coming in for WMF proposals under the FDC is significantly reduced from what happened when they went to the community. WMDE has stated it intends to review only two areas, one of which is an area where there is significant WMF/WMDE interface and historical friction. If they can't do the whole job, then the assessment will be of little value, as the staff assessments balance all aspects of proposals against each other. And really, it's unreasonable to expect another organization to take on a very time-consuming and technical process for which they have no experience and expect them to do so without payment - but the FDC doesn't have authority to spend money in that way. It's all well and good for your members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups, your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility. I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, but I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this? I can accept that perhaps 2 seats be reserved for appointees from supplicant groups, and that all other members be unaffiliated to any group that meets the baseline requirements for requesting FDC funding *even if their affiliate does not request funds*. If supplicant groups are one seat short of a majority, it seriously affects the ability of the committee to consider big-picture issues from a non-affiliated perspective; remember that the overwhelming majority of people active in the Wikimedia movement are unaffiliated with anything outside of editing a few specific projects. With the Board's resolution restricting the total value of FDC grants in the coming two years, and the proposals being made by affiliates routinely seeking increases in funding that very significantly outstrips the limitations set by the Board, the FDC will very soon be in a position where they are not just assessing proposals on their own merits. In the near future, the FDC is going to have to say no to full funding of good proposals because the total cost of good projects is higher than the pool of funds the FDC has to dispense; the FDC will have to weigh proposals against each other, so that any member who has a conflict of interest for *one* proposal will have a conflict of interest for *all* proposals they are considering within a round (and possibly within a fiscal year). Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49: Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. Inappropriate metonymy here, staff doesn't equal WMF staff. Anyway, [citation needed]. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49: Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. Inappropriate metonymy here, staff doesn't equal WMF staff. Anyway, [citation needed]. Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
2014-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. You are suggesting that the staff assessment of the WMF proposal has to be done by WMF staff, i.e. by the very same people who drafted the documents in the first place? The FDC doesn't have the authority to delegate that, either. We are aware that evaluating the WMF is in many respects different from evaluating other entities, so we are trying our best to adapt the existing process to the new situation. Why? Because having the WMF going through the same process as all the other entities seems fair and reasonable and add steps for community review that are not available now. As for authority to delegate, yes, we did not make any formal request to change the process but I am pretty sure that the board is aware of what we are doing. particularly when there are obvious conflicts of interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the impartiality of the FDC as a whole. In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here. There's no money involved in this proposal, in case you haven't noticed. Your job isn't programmatic review, Actually, besides the lack of an amount, it is: «[FDC job is to make] an assessment of the extent to which requested funding will enable those entities to have an impact on realizing the mission goals of the Wikimedia movement.» (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#mission) and you should have rejected the request. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all, and tell the WMF to go to the community as a whole, or recommend to the Board that a completely independent party do the programmatic review. The amount of feedback that is coming in for WMF proposals under the FDC is significantly reduced from what happened when they went to the community. I don't understand, WMF plan is *now* available for the community to review; the request of having it published and going through the FDC has *added* a moment where the community can comment on the budget that was not previously available, this is IMHO an amelioration with respect to the past. And really, it's unreasonable to expect another organization to take on a very time-consuming and technical process for which they have no experience and expect them to do so without payment - but the FDC doesn't have authority to spend money in that way. There is no payment to WM-DE for the assessment they are doing, if this is your question, nor it has been an option, ever. If supplicant groups are one seat short of a majority, it seriously affects the ability of the committee to consider big-picture issues from a non-affiliated perspective; [citation needed], we also have a community election, by the way. And in any case you are counting people wrong: Arjuna, Ali, Anders, Dariusz, Delphine, Mike, Yuri and myself (that is 8 people out of 9) have some affiliation or background with chapters. With the Board's resolution restricting the total value of FDC grants in the coming two years, and the proposals being made by affiliates routinely seeking increases in funding that very significantly outstrips the limitations set by the Board, the FDC will very soon be in a position where they are not just assessing proposals on their own merits. In the near future, the FDC is going to have to say no to full funding of good proposals because the total cost of good projects is higher than the pool of funds the FDC has to dispense; the FDC will have to weigh proposals against each other, so that any member who has a conflict of interest for *one* proposal will have a conflict of interest for *all* proposals they are considering within a round (and possibly within a fiscal year). I think that the most worrying issue is the possibility to have to say no to good proposal. Full stop. If this is the case then the answer should be asking to the BoT please increase the pool of funds. My personal opinion is that the FDC should be able to make their recommendations even if the total allocation recommended exceed the 6M cap, then would be the BoT to decide if they should increase the pool of funds or do something else. Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of transparency.) Best regards, Bence On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49: Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. Inappropriate metonymy here, staff doesn't equal WMF staff. Anyway, [citation needed]. Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of transparency.) Best regards, Bence In the past, the WMF budget and programmatic proposals were separate from all others, and were widely advertised as the WMF proposal. Now they are buried in FDC proposal with no specific metion that there is a WMF proposal there. I've seen no banners. I got a personal talk page message because I'd been identified as a useful person to comment. In other words, there is much less transparency or effort to reach out to the broader community for the WMF proposal, which is radically different from all other proposals. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of transparency.) Best regards, Bence In the past, the WMF budget and programmatic proposals were separate from all others, and were widely advertised as the WMF proposal. Now they are buried in FDC proposal with no specific metion that there is a WMF proposal there. I've seen no banners. I got a personal talk page message because I'd been identified as a useful person to comment. In other words, there is much less transparency or effort to reach out to the broader community for the WMF proposal, which is radically different from all other proposals. It might just have been me, but I seem to recall big banners on Wikipedia advertising the fact that the WMF's proposal was up for review (among the others). In any case, as someone who has followed the WMF's budgets over the year, I rarely do recall any formal community consultation (apart from their non-core proposal last year to the FDC), so this is a welcome step in the right direction. (I find it difficult to get on board with the implied argument that the fact that other organisations are as transparent or more at the same time as the WMF is a bad thing). Best regards, Bence Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 Apr 2014, at 20:19, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of transparency.) Best regards, Bence In the past, the WMF budget and programmatic proposals were separate from all others, and were widely advertised as the WMF proposal. Now they are buried in FDC proposal with no specific metion that there is a WMF proposal there. I've seen no banners. I got a personal talk page message because I'd been identified as a useful person to comment. In other words, there is much less transparency or effort to reach out to the broader community for the WMF proposal, which is radically different from all other proposals. It might just have been me, but I seem to recall big banners on Wikipedia advertising the fact that the WMF's proposal was up for review (among the others). In any case, as someone who has followed the WMF's budgets over the year, I rarely do recall any formal community consultation (apart from their non-core proposal last year to the FDC), so this is a welcome step in the right direction. (I find it difficult to get on board with the implied argument that the fact that other organisations are as transparent or more at the same time as the WMF is a bad thing). I was wondering the same thing. In particular, I think this is the first year that the WMF's plans are being shared with the community before they've been approved by the WMF board. Perhaps you missed the banners? The talk page message was intended as extra encouragement to comment, not as the main means of communication. Thanks, Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Risker, 27/04/2014 21:14: In the past, the WMF budget and programmatic proposals were Hello. Self-help material on WMF budget is available at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement
Hi all, I've started a page on Meta which I hope will act as a hub for documentation and ideas around the training and development needs of Wikimedia movement organisations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development I'd ask anyone who's interested in this kind of thing to have a look and add examples and thoughts for the future. As many people will know from my contributions to this year's and last year's Wikimedia conference, or from the training workshop we held in London in early March, this is an issue where I feel the movement (or, at least, the part of the movement that is involved in movement organisations!) can and should do better. I was interested to read the Signpost coverage of the Wikimedia Conference(1) which evidently comes from a similar point of view! We are slightly hampered by the fact that there is no single body responsible for doing this kind of training and development work, so I would invite everyone with a stake in this (WMF, FDC, AffCom, Chapters, Thorgs, User Groups, interested individuals) to treat this as something where everyone can play a role in sharing experience, scoping out the way forward, and building a better way of doing this for the future! Regards, Chris (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-23/Special_report ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49: Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then it needs to be done by staff. Inappropriate metonymy here, staff doesn't equal WMF staff. Anyway, [citation needed]. Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. i must say i like the proceeding of the WMF to early get feedback on its annual plan, and i even like more that they decided to just dump it into some standard process we already have. i also like the proceeding of the FDC. if they are not the sock-puppet of somebody they should be free to take whatever measure to better judge proposals. and - as always - everybody is free to comment on the wiki page and mailing list separately. and with it influence the outcome. i like as well as there is a tendency to make it less complicated, and involve less parties. especially less parties who do not contribute to wikipedia, whose main achievement is to write an invoice and bring the admin - project spending rate into unhealthy spheres. just for the ones interested in the link of the WMF proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value in having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a position where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE staff has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders specifically for comments, and so it did. best, dariusz pundit -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value in having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a position where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE staff has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders specifically for comments, and so it did. best, dariusz pundit There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here: I think this is, even while not perfect, a practical implementation of what FDC has been asked to do. I haven't hear any alternatives that would really be /better/ and good to implement at this moment. But maybe things could be different next year. I suggest that people who have good ideas for alternative organizations bring that up with that in mind for next year (in a few months or so, when the FDC is less swamped with work). Lodewijk 2014-04-27 23:51 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value in having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a position where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE staff has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders specifically for comments, and so it did. best, dariusz pundit There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement
Thanks Chris. Interesting you chose to link to my unfinished peer review with WMEE, considering you asked me to halt my inter-chapter governance activities when you were the Chair of WMUK. If you think it is a good idea to allow me to finish the peer reviews I started, perhaps you should check with the board of WMUK so that I am can officially approach those involved to see if they think it would be worthwhile. Fae On 27/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I've started a page on Meta which I hope will act as a hub for documentation and ideas around the training and development needs of Wikimedia movement organisations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development I'd ask anyone who's interested in this kind of thing to have a look and add examples and thoughts for the future. As many people will know from my contributions to this year's and last year's Wikimedia conference, or from the training workshop we held in London in early March, this is an issue where I feel the movement (or, at least, the part of the movement that is involved in movement organisations!) can and should do better. I was interested to read the Signpost coverage of the Wikimedia Conference(1) which evidently comes from a similar point of view! We are slightly hampered by the fact that there is no single body responsible for doing this kind of training and development work, so I would invite everyone with a stake in this (WMF, FDC, AffCom, Chapters, Thorgs, User Groups, interested individuals) to treat this as something where everyone can play a role in sharing experience, scoping out the way forward, and building a better way of doing this for the future! Regards, Chris (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-23 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Risker: just to confirm one way or another, when you say which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC, are you referring to the FDC evaluating the efficacy of the FDC's grants in particular, or of all WMF grantmaking programs? I would agree that the former is definitely problematic, but I'm not convinced of the latter. I think they could probably review something like PEG with no problem, and probably do so quite well since the FDC is accumulating grantmaking expertise, and doesn't realistically compete with PEG for funding or anything like that. Sorry for only commenting on one aspect, I'm still working out the others in my head. Best, Kevin Gorman On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here: I think this is, even while not perfect, a practical implementation of what FDC has been asked to do. I haven't hear any alternatives that would really be /better/ and good to implement at this moment. But maybe things could be different next year. I suggest that people who have good ideas for alternative organizations bring that up with that in mind for next year (in a few months or so, when the FDC is less swamped with work). Lodewijk 2014-04-27 23:51 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial assessment by a conflicted group that isn't staff, has no experience using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff; it has WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to pick who does the assessments. Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value in having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a position where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE staff has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders specifically for comments, and so it did. best, dariusz pundit There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC. Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement
Hi Chris - Thanks for starting this; it's something we need, especially going in to the next few years. I'll aim to contribute quite a bit to the page, although the bulk of my contributions may await the end of the term. It's also probably worth noting that there will be some degree of overlap between this and the WMF's program evaluation pages (although I do see an active point in having both sets of pages.) Best, Kevin Gorman On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Chris. Interesting you chose to link to my unfinished peer review with WMEE, considering you asked me to halt my inter-chapter governance activities when you were the Chair of WMUK. If you think it is a good idea to allow me to finish the peer reviews I started, perhaps you should check with the board of WMUK so that I am can officially approach those involved to see if they think it would be worthwhile. Fae On 27/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I've started a page on Meta which I hope will act as a hub for documentation and ideas around the training and development needs of Wikimedia movement organisations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organisational_development I'd ask anyone who's interested in this kind of thing to have a look and add examples and thoughts for the future. As many people will know from my contributions to this year's and last year's Wikimedia conference, or from the training workshop we held in London in early March, this is an issue where I feel the movement (or, at least, the part of the movement that is involved in movement organisations!) can and should do better. I was interested to read the Signpost coverage of the Wikimedia Conference(1) which evidently comes from a similar point of view! We are slightly hampered by the fact that there is no single body responsible for doing this kind of training and development work, so I would invite everyone with a stake in this (WMF, FDC, AffCom, Chapters, Thorgs, User Groups, interested individuals) to treat this as something where everyone can play a role in sharing experience, scoping out the way forward, and building a better way of doing this for the future! Regards, Chris (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-23 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
Risker risker.wp@... writes: There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC. So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF departments to be evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the same room than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous. One can argue that the FDC asking movement entities to analyze the funding of other movement entities is a bad thing, but it has been the status quo ever since the FDC came into being, so asking WMDE to evaluate WMF is perfectly in line with past practice. There might be legitimate reasons for preferring that the WMF keep all the funding-recommendation-making power, instead of trying to distribute that power within the movement, but if that's the case, you should think about what those are instead of making red herring arguments about conflicts of interest. (Also, if that's the case, what would be the point of having the FDC? It was created exactly to diminish the role of WMF, as you put it, and make the decision-making about funding a more collaborative process.) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal
On 27 April 2014 22:04, Gergo Tisza gti...@gmail.com wrote: Risker risker.wp@... writes: There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC. So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF departments to be evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the same room than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous. One can argue that the FDC asking movement entities to analyze the funding of other movement entities is a bad thing, but it has been the status quo ever since the FDC came into being, so asking WMDE to evaluate WMF is perfectly in line with past practice. I'm still taking the position that the FDC shouldn't be reviewing anything that does not include a direct funding request from an eligible entity. However, if we're going to be absurd, then at least we should be consistently absurd, and have the same people doing the staff assessment of a proposal that the FDC cannot approve. Any entity can comment on anyone else's proposal under their own auspices. Granting special authority and a higher degree of importance to any of the entities to review the WMF proposal sets that reviewing entity at a higher level than any other commenter, including other movement entities. Why is WMDE's opinion more relevant than, say, WMIT? or WMIN? or WMPL? or CIS? Or French Wikipedia's? Or Swahili Wikisource's? Indeed, I'd say that they'd be better off to ask the Board Audit Committee to do the assessment rather than having any individual entity do it. There might be legitimate reasons for preferring that the WMF keep all the funding-recommendation-making power, instead of trying to distribute that power within the movement, but if that's the case, you should think about what those are instead of making red herring arguments about conflicts of interest. (Also, if that's the case, what would be the point of having the FDC? It was created exactly to diminish the role of WMF, as you put it, and make the decision-making about funding a more collaborative process.) The WMF isn't keeping all the funding recommendation making power. WMF staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with the FDC, and post their results. The FDC reviews the analysis, asks additional questions, notes the responses to questions directed at the applicants, and makes their decision; the WMF does not have the opportunity to overrule them, only the Board of Trustees does. Risker ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
