Marc,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
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
While this is a compelling interpretation - for the sake of argument -
I am not sure the words of the ED of the WMF can bind the Board of the
WMF in the decisions they make. I could imagine situations where they
could, and normally the ED advises the Board on what direction to
take, but normally
On 30/04/2014, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a compelling interpretation - for the sake of argument -
I am not sure the words of the ED of the WMF can bind the Board of the
WMF in the decisions they make. I could imagine situations where they
could, and normally the ED
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
On 25 April 2014 15:17, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi Risker,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an
independent third party review if it feels that there is not the
necessary
ability for the FDC to produce its own
Hi Risker,
On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not
have the authority to delegate its role.
I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking
WMDE to do the 'staff
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi Risker,
On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not
have the authority to delegate its role.
I think you're
Nathan skrev 2014-04-27 19:09:
n
The potential problem is straightforward. Look at the FDC recommendation
for WMDE in the same round as the staff assessment you linked; they are
very similar - same conclusions, even similar or identical language. A
little analysis would reveal how often the FDC
On 27 April 2014 12:37, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hi Risker,
On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
However, having accepted the validity of the proposal, the FDC does not
have the authority to delegate its role.
I think you're misunderstanding what has
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
On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49:
Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then
it needs to be done by staff.
Inappropriate metonymy here, staff doesn't equal WMF staff. Anyway,
[citation needed].
2014-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then
it needs to be done by staff.
You are suggesting that the staff assessment of the WMF proposal has
to be done by WMF staff, i.e. by the very same people who drafted
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
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried
out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I
assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of
transparency.)
Best
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried
out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I
assume the data is as
On 27 Apr 2014, at 20:19, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried
out? (If indeed the
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
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49:
Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then
it needs to be done by staff.
Inappropriate
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the
request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then
community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the
request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then
community
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
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
Risker risker.wp@... writes:
There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished -
to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really
On 27 April 2014 22:04, Gergo Tisza gti...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker risker.wp@... writes:
There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself
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
Nice idea. The more participation, the better.
Nathan, 24/04/2014 22:46:
an entity
competing with the WMF for funding from the same pool
But no such entity exists. Problem solved.
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
One thing we forgot to mention is that the FDC staff will still be doing the
financial and other quantitative data analysis, since this is a quantitative
analysis that is based on public data and standard calculations. WMDE (and
anyone else) are invited to point out any discrepancies
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
