Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

[Lodewijk]

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,
>
> 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 Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> Foundation, Inc.
>  T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
> @Philippewiki
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Chris Keating
> 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/Special_report
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 advance for a favourable response next
time?

To be clear, I don't think that WMDE has any such expectations.  On the
other hand, this is why it is a conflict of interest for WMDE to be asked
to do the review.


>
> Gergo Tisza, 28/04/2014 04:04:
>
> > 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.
>
> +1
> Risker, can you please check that your views of what makes a COI fit in <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_
> conflicts_of_interest> and propose your view on talk page if not?
>

See above.



>
> Risker, 28/04/2014 04:40:
>
> > Their opinion
> > is equivalent to yours, or mine, or any other person's on this mailing
> list.
>
> Fantastic. Then, if you're interested in providing opinions, please do so;
> you've not yet expressed a single opinion, hence I don't see why you worry
> about the value which is going to be attached to it.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:
> APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/
> Proposal_form&action=edit§ion=new
>
>

Well, given that my assessment is essentially that it shows poor judgment
on everyone's part for this to be where it is and going through the process
that it's going through, I'm not sure there's much else for me to say.  I
focused my time today on reading other proposals that are appropriately
within the FDC scope.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 to be
> evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the 
same room

> than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous.

+1
Risker, can you please check that your views of what makes a COI fit in 
 
and propose your view on talk page if not?


Risker, 28/04/2014 04:40:
> Their opinion
> is equivalent to yours, or mine, or any other person's on this 
mailing list.


Fantastic. Then, if you're interested in providing opinions, please do 
so; you've not yet expressed a single opinion, hence I don't see why you 
worry about the value which is going to be attached to it.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_form&action=edit§ion=new

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 staff, i.e. by the very same people who drafted the
> documents in the first place?
>


I think you misunderstand who drafts the budget for the WMF, if you think
that Anasuya and her department are 'the very same people who drafted the
documents".  At best, they draft the recommendation for their own
department - which includes the FDC budget so your reviewing it is a
conflict anyway.




>
> >  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.
>

There is a commonly used term for this:  "normalization of unsafe
practice", also known as "something must be done, this is something,
therefore it must be done".  It is accepting an assignment knowing that it
cannot be completed without significant aberration from standard and safe
practices, just to get it more or less done in some fashion, even if it is
done suboptimally.  In this case, there's not even a recognition that this
is an undesirable practice.

There's no reason why the WMF proposal cannot be reviewed outside of the
FDC framework.

The WMF is different in that it is the parent organization.  It exists
separate of all of the affiliates and would continue to exist if all the
affiliates disappeared tomorrow.  The affiliates exist at the pleasure of
the WMF Board, and the Board could decide tomorrow that it will no longer
support affiliates or allow other entities to use its trademarks or
copyrights.  They are extremely different creatures.  Now, it's not likely
the Board will pull the rug out from under all the chapters, although it's
done so in the past, and had to take a very hard line with others as well.

So yes, they're different.



>
> >> > 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.
>


You see the words "...extent to which* requested funding...*"?  The WMF has
not requested funding.  Therefore it is out of scope for the FDC.



>
> > 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.
>

I think this may be a misunderstanding. These assessments will take their
staff time away from other tasks that are expectations of their own
organization.  There is an actual cost to the WMDE to carry out this
assessment; the cost will be higher for them to do it beca

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 WMF spending using a rubric agreed upon with the FDC and
> posting their results?
>
> You certainly can't argue that WMDE is more in a position of conflict of
> interest than WMF staff when evaluating proposed WMF spending?
>
> The end result is the same: "The FDC reviews the analysis, asks
> additional questions, notes the responses to questions directed at the
> [applicant], and makes their decision".
>
>
>
Marc, in this case, they have no decision to make because there is no
funding request.  Absent a funding request - the key criterion for
evaluation - they have no role in making a recommendation.  Their opinion
is equivalent to yours, or mine, or any other person's on this mailing list.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

[Philippe Beaudette]

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 Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewiki


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Chris Keating
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/Special_report
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Marc A. Pelletier]

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 their results?

You certainly can't argue that WMDE is more in a position of conflict of
interest than WMF staff when evaluating proposed WMF spending?

The end result is the same: "The FDC reviews the analysis, asks
additional questions, notes the responses to questions directed at the
[applicant], and makes their decision".

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Gergo Tisza]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

[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  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  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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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 wrote:

> 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 :
>
> > 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 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

[Fæ]

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  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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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 :

> 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 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[rupert THURNER]

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" 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Organizational development for the Wikimedia movement

[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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Michael Peel]

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
>>> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Bence Damokos]

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 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, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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,
> 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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  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" 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, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Cristian Consonni]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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].
>
>

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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Nathan]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Michael Peel]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Risker]

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 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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[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"  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,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
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, 

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

[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  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

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

[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,