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

[Balázs Viczián]

Hi Salvador, I beleive we have at least three (or more) "basises for
inspiration and future success" already. All started from scratches and all
of them almost completely ignored all previous attempts.

My 2 cents here is to lower the level of such ignorance as much as possible
and build them in into this proposal; at least by pointing out what to
avoid based on their failures (not to mention to learn what could work as
showed popular) to speed up the process

Balazs
2014.04.28. 19:12, "Salvador A"  ezt írta:

> If a topic merge regularly only means that is an overwhelming worry that
> must be solved.
>
> I don't see Chris' proposal as "reinventing the wheel" but as a new attempt
> to give answers to an inconclude question. If past attempts have failed
> that doesn't mean that this one must do it either. Non sequitur. Even if it
> fails it can be the basis or inspiration for a future success. Remember one
> of our principles: Be bold!
>
> The members of AffComm are willing to support any initiative related to
> development of affiliates. Please Chris, feel comfortable asking us
> whatever you need. One of our members will follow up your efforts. Finally,
> we encourage the community to participate.
>
>
> 2014-04-28 11:30 GMT-05:00 Balázs Viczián :
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > pls correct me if I'm wrong, but WCA was aimed to do this (and already
> > collected some materials) but ultimately failed due to the fact that from
> > this basic idea it was quickly developed into an "uber-chapter"-like
> thing,
> > not to mention the other problems.
> >
> > Anyways, I would highly recommend to stop reinventing the wheel every
> year
> > as there are at least 2 or more similar (or like-minded) initiatives from
> > the past years. Plus those that I'm not aware of.
> >
> > Rather collect and merge them into a single proposition as there are
> plenty
> > to learn from their failure than starting again (what you just did btw)
> >
> > Imo.
> >
> > Cheers, Balazs
> > 2014.04.28. 8:30, "Lodewijk"  ezt írta:
> >
> > > 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/list

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

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 04/28/2014 10:29 PM, Russavia wrote:
> because the
> WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the "movement" should
> not be putting one cent into such positions.

That's an interessing conclusion you reach, because the Executive
Director's words *are* indeed clear - as you quoted:

> "In the future, *the Wikimedia Foundation* will not support or
> endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as
> a core focus [...]"
(emph. mine)

I'm pretty sure I don't see the "movement" mentionned anywhere in there.

Whether the chapters intend to take such a position themselves is indeed
an interesting question, but that they are obligated to do so or that
the FDC is obligated to ensure that they do does not follow from what
Sue has been saying.

-- 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

[Russavia]

A question in relation to funding that hasn't yet been answered, and needs
to be before 1 cent of funds is handed out by the FDC.

As part of the WMF's "report" on Belfer, Sue Gardner stated:[1]

"In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the
creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus,
regardless of who is initiating or managing the process."

This lead to Fae asking specific questions,[2] which have as yet gone
unanswered.

I have asked several people who were in Berlin whether this was discussed,
and (not) surprisingly, it wasn't -- totally ignored, it never happened, it
was never said, etc seems to be how the chapters and other FDC-reliant
organisations have reacted to it.

Can chapters please advise what "paid editing" positions are planned, and
whether those positions will be covered as part of "movement" funds, or
whether outside organisations will be covering such positions, because the
WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the "movement" should
not be putting one cent into such positions.

Thanks,

Russavia


[1]
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment#Decisions_made
[2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/070834.html
___
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

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Bence Damokos  wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Thanks Bence -- I also welcome the comments from the FDC and the community,
and am glad that there is a formal process to do so before the plan is
finalized this year.

In the proposal: are these the right key areas for the WMF to focus on? Are
we missing major opportunities or risks? Do we need to strengthen
particular areas, or focus less on others, to support the projects and
achieve our strategic goals? Those are the questions that the board asks
themselves about the annual plan during this stage, and I hope that the
community and FDC members will offer input on this as well.

best,
Phoebe

-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
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

[Claudia Garád]

Szia Balazs,

I don't think that the the topics (such as organizational development) 
that led to the idea of WCA are the reason that it failed.
In fact this current initiative is an attempt to carry on what has been 
started in the context of WCA but in a more lose, flexible manner (a 
learning from the WCA history) and to incorporate what has been done up 
to that point. It's not detached from what has been done before. The 
positive feedback on the pilot workshop in London encouraged us to carry 
on and to refine the concept.
To put it on a broader basis and to approach the issue more 
systematically we are currently planning a survey with Anasuyas team in 
order to assess the needs for capacity building in the various 
organizations. We asked Bence for advice and to incorporate AffComm know 
how.


I'm happy that Chris and other dedicated volunteers going through all 
the effort to collect information on what has been done so far and to 
drive this forward. With joint forces we can generate a lot of positive 
impact for the movement.


Best
Claudia


Am 28.04.2014 19:12, schrieb Salvador A:

If a topic merge regularly only means that is an overwhelming worry that
must be solved.

I don't see Chris' proposal as "reinventing the wheel" but as a new attempt
to give answers to an inconclude question. If past attempts have failed
that doesn't mean that this one must do it either. Non sequitur. Even if it
fails it can be the basis or inspiration for a future success. Remember one
of our principles: Be bold!

The members of AffComm are willing to support any initiative related to
development of affiliates. Please Chris, feel comfortable asking us
whatever you need. One of our members will follow up your efforts. Finally,
we encourage the community to participate.


2014-04-28 11:30 GMT-05:00 Balázs Viczián :


Hi all,

pls correct me if I'm wrong, but WCA was aimed to do this (and already
collected some materials) but ultimately failed due to the fact that from
this basic idea it was quickly developed into an "uber-chapter"-like thing,
not to mention the other problems.

Anyways, I would highly recommend to stop reinventing the wheel every year
as there are at least 2 or more similar (or like-minded) initiatives from
the past years. Plus those that I'm not aware of.

Rather collect and merge them into a single proposition as there are plenty
to learn from their failure than starting again (what you just did btw)

Imo.

Cheers, Balazs
2014.04.28. 8:30, "Lodewijk"  ezt írta:


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,



___
Wikimedi

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

[Salvador A]

If a topic merge regularly only means that is an overwhelming worry that
must be solved.

I don't see Chris' proposal as "reinventing the wheel" but as a new attempt
to give answers to an inconclude question. If past attempts have failed
that doesn't mean that this one must do it either. Non sequitur. Even if it
fails it can be the basis or inspiration for a future success. Remember one
of our principles: Be bold!

The members of AffComm are willing to support any initiative related to
development of affiliates. Please Chris, feel comfortable asking us
whatever you need. One of our members will follow up your efforts. Finally,
we encourage the community to participate.


2014-04-28 11:30 GMT-05:00 Balázs Viczián :

> Hi all,
>
> pls correct me if I'm wrong, but WCA was aimed to do this (and already
> collected some materials) but ultimately failed due to the fact that from
> this basic idea it was quickly developed into an "uber-chapter"-like thing,
> not to mention the other problems.
>
> Anyways, I would highly recommend to stop reinventing the wheel every year
> as there are at least 2 or more similar (or like-minded) initiatives from
> the past years. Plus those that I'm not aware of.
>
> Rather collect and merge them into a single proposition as there are plenty
> to learn from their failure than starting again (what you just did btw)
>
> Imo.
>
> Cheers, Balazs
> 2014.04.28. 8:30, "Lodewijk"  ezt írta:
>
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http

[Wikimedia-l] Free journal access through The Wikipedia Library: new pilots

[Jake Orlowitz]

Good news!  The successful, free journal access partnerships organized by
The Wikipedia Library are expanding with two new pilots:

* Oxford University Press - 150 accounts for humanities references -
http://enwp.org/WP:OUP

* Royal Society Journals - 24 accounts for science journals -
http://enwp.org/WP:RSUK

There's also ongoing availability for:

* Questia Online Library - 600 accounts for news and social science
articles - http://enwp.org/WP:Questia

* HighBeam Research - 600 accounts for news archives -
http://enwp.org/WP:HighBeam

Sign up today!

Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
___
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

[Balázs Viczián]

Hi all,

pls correct me if I'm wrong, but WCA was aimed to do this (and already
collected some materials) but ultimately failed due to the fact that from
this basic idea it was quickly developed into an "uber-chapter"-like thing,
not to mention the other problems.

Anyways, I would highly recommend to stop reinventing the wheel every year
as there are at least 2 or more similar (or like-minded) initiatives from
the past years. Plus those that I'm not aware of.

Rather collect and merge them into a single proposition as there are plenty
to learn from their failure than starting again (what you just did btw)

Imo.

Cheers, Balazs
2014.04.28. 8:30, "Lodewijk"  ezt írta:

> 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,
> 
___
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]

2014-04-28 5:22 GMT+02:00 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".

You are missing the fact that Garfield does a review which is part of
the staff assessment and of course he has a major role in drafting WMF's
budget. Furthermore, putting Anasuya and the grant team in the
position of assessing their colleagues' work would be in my view, to
say the least, very unpleasant. Also, the staff assessment comprises
usually some information like past compliance with reporting and
other grant-related duties that in this case would not apply.

As Anders said above the staff assessment "gives some key things not
to be overlooked by FDC", since we recognize the value of this input
we are trying to replicate this also for the peculiar case of WMF.

>  At best, they draft the recommendation for their own
> department - which includes the FDC budget so your reviewing it is a
> conflict anyway.

We are aware of that but as there is no amount the problem is, in my
view, not so pressing. Note also that there will be the FDC Adivsory
Committee meeting at the end of May that will be reviewing this first
two years of FDC and, among other things, they will recommend to the
board if the FDC is worth continuing or should be disbanded.
Furthermore, to be hypothetical, if there would have been amounts in
the proposal the amount related to the FDC would have been
specifically excluded, I hope that we will have this problem next
year.

>> >  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.

You may want to address to the BoT so they can ask the staff (with the
legitimateness to do so they have) to adhere more closely the FDC
process next time (for example putting amounts in), this has been discussed in
the last months and that would be also my suggestion. To me the
alternative looks that we would have been missing a moment for
reviewing the FDC that is now being added.

> And this is what is most worrisome to anyone who believes that the WMF must
> be a fiscally responsible organization. Not everything can be done at
> once.  Being able to tell affiliates that it is essential that they
> prioritize their goals and objectives and identify which ones they feel are
> most important is part of the proposal assessment process.  The FDC has a
> specific amount of money it can give out; the Board has already given you
> the marching papers on this, and provided support to the FDC in making
> these hard decisions by telling affilliates that there is a limited pool
> and they cannot grow by 30% per year.

Yes, of course. In my answer I was following your premises i.e. that
the projects would be good enough that canceling for lack of funding
would cause more harm than good.

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Risker,


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Risker  wrote:

> 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.
>

I agree that definitely having an exact budget and suggesting a precise
amount allocation is better, as it requires the FDC to be specific and
clear. Also, since we are operating in a scarce resources reality
(irrespective of whether they are self-imposed by the Board, or external),
it makes more practical sense to be able to suggest limits to all entities
undergoing the FDC process.

However, the practicalities of this year's solution are also clear.



> 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?
>

We have not addressed WMDE because of any gripes or potential power
struggles, as you seem to have suggested in your previous post. Rather,
we've decided that the second largest entity is naturally the most
professionally equipped to do the task. Also, WMDE is the only entity in
the movement that has a budget of comparable scale (over 1m), and in the
FDC it is considered to be "large" (while, as a ballpark figure, we
consider entities below 100k as "small").

Please, note also that we've requested what any other stakeholder can do as
well and we really value and appreciate all assessments from the movement's
stakeholders. It is only that we need to have at least one confirmed and
delivered for sure. It is not about granting any special authority, but
about assuring that this assessment is delivered. We will be extremely
excited and welcome feedback from other entities on any of the proposals -
but we realize that it is a lot of work, and in previous rounds the
feedback from third parties has been limited.

I have full trust in the FDC staff and their abilities, and I am actually
certain they would be able to prepare a professional assessment of the WMF.
Still, for the sake of transparency, and to avoid both an actual and a
perceived COI, I think it is reasonable to involve a separate entity, and
the second largest one in the movement seems to us as a good choice.

In any case, I understand your concerns. In our collective decision the
pros prevailed over cons, simply.

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,