Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive

2014-04-27 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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

2014-04-27 Thread Milos Rancic
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

2014-04-27 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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

2014-04-27 Thread Michael Peel
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

2014-04-27 Thread Nathan
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

2014-04-27 Thread Anders Wennersten


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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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

2014-04-27 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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 Thread Cristian Consonni
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

2014-04-27 Thread Bence Damokos
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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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

2014-04-27 Thread Bence Damokos
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

2014-04-27 Thread Michael Peel

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

2014-04-27 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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

2014-04-27 Thread Chris Keating
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

2014-04-27 Thread rupert THURNER
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

2014-04-27 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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

2014-04-27 Thread Lodewijk
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

2014-04-27 Thread
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

2014-04-27 Thread Kevin Gorman
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

2014-04-27 Thread Kevin Gorman
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

2014-04-27 Thread Gergo Tisza
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

2014-04-27 Thread Risker
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