Thanks Philippe for the pointer. Sounds like an interesting angle, she has
been hired very recently it seems? I'm looking forward to the slightly more
details description on the user page that is apparently forthcoming :)
Lodewijk
2014-04-28 4:39 GMT+02:00 Philippe Beaudette :
> Hi Chris,
>
> H
On 28 April 2014 01:37, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 28/04/2014 05:22:
>
> There is an actual cost to the WMDE to carry out this
>> assessment
>>
>
> With which you've replied to your own questions on why WMDE. Thanks
> generous WMDE for the gift.
>
Is it a gift, or is it payment in ad
Risker, 28/04/2014 05:22:
There is an actual cost to the WMDE to carry out this
assessment
With which you've replied to your own questions on why WMDE. Thanks
generous WMDE for the gift.
Gergo Tisza, 28/04/2014 04:04:
> So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF
departments
On 27 April 2014 15:00, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> 2014-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> > 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 st
On 27 April 2014 22:29, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 04/27/2014 10:15 PM, Risker wrote:
> > WMF
> > staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with
> the
> > FDC, and post their results.
>
> So what then is the supposed conflict in letting WMDE also review the
> proposed W
Hi Chris,
Have you approached Anna Stillwell -
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:AStillwell_(WMF) - about this?
She seems a natural person to include in your discussions and thinking.
Having worked with her some, I think she'll have some real insights for
you. :-)
pb
*Philippe Beaud
On 04/27/2014 10:15 PM, Risker wrote:
> WMF
> staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with the
> FDC, and post their results.
So what then is the supposed conflict in letting WMDE also review the
proposed WMF spending using a rubric agreed upon with the FDC and
posting th
On 27 April 2014 22:04, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> Risker 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
Risker 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 y
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
b
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 t
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 wit
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 y
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker 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 usef
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker 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 conflicte
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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" do
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
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.wik
On 27 Apr 2014, at 20:19, Bence Damokos wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker wrote:
>> On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos wrote:
>>
>>> What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried
>>> out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I
>>>
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos 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 curr
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos 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,
> Benc
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 wrote:
> On 27 A
2014-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> 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 t
On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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].
>
>
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 mail
On 27 April 2014 12:37, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi Risker,
>
> On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker 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
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
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi Risker,
>
> On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker 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
Hi Risker,
On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker 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 pro
On 25 April 2014 15:17, Michael Peel 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 assessme
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 comp
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
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, m
33 matches
Mail list logo
