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

[Fæ]

On 30/04/2014, Bence Damokos  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 advises the Board on what direction to
> take, but normally it should be the other way around when it comes to
> binding statements.

The ED may not "bind the board", trustees have legal independence for
governance reasons such as whistle-blowing. However the ED does
officially speak for the WMF and legally commits the organization when
making or authorizing statements and reports. The board of trustees
should be seen to support her statements or take positive action to
correct her if they do not.

This is a significant part of the duties Sue is paid to take on for us

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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]

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 it should be the other way around when it comes to
binding statements.

Best regards,
Bence

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Russavia  wrote:
> Marc,
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Marc A. Pelletier 
>  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 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.
>
>
> My native language is English, and understanding the sentence:
>
> "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."
>
> is a case of simple comprehension.
>
> Let's use another way of putting across what this sentence is saying.
>
> Timmy's parents are noted anti-drug activists, speaking out against the
> horrors of drugs. But, Timmy is a drug addict, and whilst his parents
> publicly speak out against drugs, they had been quietly paying for Timmy's
> habit. When this was brought to the attention of the public, Timmy's
> parents put out a statement that read:
>
> "In the future, we (Timmy's parents) will not support or endorse Timmy's
> drug addiction, regardless of who buys or enables the supply of drugs."
>
> Now, Timmy continues to do drugs, and it later comes out that his continued
> habit was as a result of Timmy getting money from his uncle, who in turn
> was given money by Timmy's parents, with Timmy's parents knowing full well
> that a percentage of the money which was being given to Timmy's uncle was
> continuing to feed Timmy's habit.
>
> Wouldn't Timmy's parents be totally hypocritical in this instance? Wouldn't
> anyone who pointed out that the statement only said "we (Timmy's parents)"
> be avoiding the issue that Timmy's parents are in fact continuing to
> support Timmy's habit, when they have explicitly said that they would not?
>
> I know that the chapters have a reason for not asking, but unlike the
> chapters (and over parties), I don't have a financial and vested interest
> in WMF funds.
>
> So, Marc, perhaps, "movement" was the incorrect word to use, but other than
> that the obvious intent of the comments and questions I've raised stay the
> same. So, I will rephrase to allow for zero semantics.
>
> "Can chapters please advise what "paid editing" positions are planned, and
> whether those positions will be covered as part of WMF allocated funds, or
> whether outside organisations will be covering funding of such positions,
> because the WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the WMF
> will not be putting one cent into (supporting) such positions."
>
> I await an official response from the WMF on this issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia
> ___
> 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

[Russavia]

Marc,

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Marc A. Pelletier 
 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 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.


My native language is English, and understanding the sentence:

"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."

is a case of simple comprehension.

Let's use another way of putting across what this sentence is saying.

Timmy's parents are noted anti-drug activists, speaking out against the
horrors of drugs. But, Timmy is a drug addict, and whilst his parents
publicly speak out against drugs, they had been quietly paying for Timmy's
habit. When this was brought to the attention of the public, Timmy's
parents put out a statement that read:

"In the future, we (Timmy's parents) will not support or endorse Timmy's
drug addiction, regardless of who buys or enables the supply of drugs."

Now, Timmy continues to do drugs, and it later comes out that his continued
habit was as a result of Timmy getting money from his uncle, who in turn
was given money by Timmy's parents, with Timmy's parents knowing full well
that a percentage of the money which was being given to Timmy's uncle was
continuing to feed Timmy's habit.

Wouldn't Timmy's parents be totally hypocritical in this instance? Wouldn't
anyone who pointed out that the statement only said "we (Timmy's parents)"
be avoiding the issue that Timmy's parents are in fact continuing to
support Timmy's habit, when they have explicitly said that they would not?

I know that the chapters have a reason for not asking, but unlike the
chapters (and over parties), I don't have a financial and vested interest
in WMF funds.

So, Marc, perhaps, "movement" was the incorrect word to use, but other than
that the obvious intent of the comments and questions I've raised stay the
same. So, I will rephrase to allow for zero semantics.

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

I await an official response from the WMF on this issue.

Regards,

Russavia
___
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 Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:36 AM, ENWP Pine  wrote:

> In case anyone is interested in the content of the draft Annual Plan,
> there is plenty of discussion on the talk page and any editor in good
> standing can participate. The principal commentators on the talk page so
> far have been Nemo and I. Regardless of which organization does the staff
> assessment I think the discussion on the talk page is valuable and I
> encourage more people to review the plan and make comments. It would be
> good to have more diversity. If anyone has concerns about the plan's
> content, now is the time to say so. (: We're having a good discussion,
> please join us.
>
> I'm glad WMF made the draft available for comment from the community, FDC,
> and other Wikimedia organizations.
>
> Pine
>

Yes, +1... and I would just say if you have concerns or if you have
*support* for particular directions! Getting feedback on what we should be
doing, in a positive sense, is important too :)

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] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[ENWP Pine]

In case anyone is interested in the content of the draft Annual Plan, there is 
plenty of discussion on the talk page and any editor in good standing can 
participate. The principal commentators on the talk page so far have been Nemo 
and I. Regardless of which organization does the staff assessment I think the 
discussion on the talk page is valuable and I encourage more people to review 
the plan and make comments. It would be good to have more diversity. If anyone 
has concerns about the plan's content, now is the time to say so. (: We're 
having a good discussion, please join us. 

I'm glad WMF made the draft available for comment from the community, FDC, and 
other Wikimedia organizations.

Pine
  
___
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 04/28/2014 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] 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, 

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] 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] 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] 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, 

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] Assessing this round of FDC proposals, including the WMF's proposal

[Balázs Viczián]

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, 

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

[Michael Peel]

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, 

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

[Michael Peel]

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 they find with these 
data from the proposal on the talk page.

Thanks,
Mike

On 24 Apr 2014, at 21:54, Nicole Ebber  wrote:

> Dear Mike and FDC members,
> 
> Thank you for approaching us, we feel honoured and gladly agree to help
> assessing the WMF FDC proposal.
> 
> Given the short time frame, we are only able to assess the Infrastructure
> and Mobile part of the proposal. We will focus on the plan's
> comprehensibility and its consistency with the strategy.
> 
> Please note that we will only be able to determine the detailed scope of
> the assessment in the course of the analysis.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Nicole Ebber
> International Affairs
> 
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> 
> http://wikimedia.de
> On 24 Apr 2014 21:09, "Michael Peel"  wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This round of proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
>> presents a new and interesting challenge - that of reviewing the entirety
>> of the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF's) plan for the next year. As part of
>> the FDC process, the WMF/FDC staff normally assemble a staff assessment of
>> each proposal. In this case, however, the WMF/FDC staff have a potential
>> bias here, since their work is included in the WMF's proposal.
>> 
>> As a result, we have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), the second
>> largest entity in our movement, to do the staff assessment of the WMF's
>> proposal, and they have agreed to do this. WMDE will be adapting the
>> framework of the standard staff assessment as they see fit in order to
>> appropriately assess the WMF's proposal; the main expectation we have is
>> that they will help identify the key strengths and weaknesses of the
>> proposal in their assessment. They will be sharing their assessment with
>> the WMF on the 7th May, on the same day that the FDC staff will share their
>> assessments with the other applicants, in both cases to check for factual
>> inaccuracies. The assessment will be posted publicly on the 8th May, on the
>> same day that the FDC staff will publicly post their assessments.
>> 
>> We would also like to encourage the other Wikimedia organisations to
>> review the WMF's proposal, and to post comments and questions on the talk
>> page for the proposal. It goes without saying that we also encourage
>> Wikimedia community members to also review the WMF's proposal, and the
>> other proposals in this round, and to similarly post comments and
>> questions. Community feedback is important for the FDC work. The FDC will
>> take all feedback into account during its deliberations next month. We will
>> also be inviting specific community members with particular
>> experience/skills to ask for their input on the proposals; please get in
>> touch if you have any suggestions of community members that should be
>> invited to do this.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dariusz and Mike on behalf of the FDC
>> ___
>> 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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear Mike and FDC members,

Thank you for approaching us, we feel honoured and gladly agree to help
assessing the WMF FDC proposal.

Given the short time frame, we are only able to assess the Infrastructure
and Mobile part of the proposal. We will focus on the plan's
comprehensibility and its consistency with the strategy.

Please note that we will only be able to determine the detailed scope of
the assessment in the course of the analysis.

Thanks,

Nicole Ebber
International Affairs

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.

http://wikimedia.de
On 24 Apr 2014 21:09, "Michael Peel"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This round of proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
> presents a new and interesting challenge - that of reviewing the entirety
> of the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF's) plan for the next year. As part of
> the FDC process, the WMF/FDC staff normally assemble a staff assessment of
> each proposal. In this case, however, the WMF/FDC staff have a potential
> bias here, since their work is included in the WMF's proposal.
>
> As a result, we have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), the second
> largest entity in our movement, to do the staff assessment of the WMF's
> proposal, and they have agreed to do this. WMDE will be adapting the
> framework of the standard staff assessment as they see fit in order to
> appropriately assess the WMF's proposal; the main expectation we have is
> that they will help identify the key strengths and weaknesses of the
> proposal in their assessment. They will be sharing their assessment with
> the WMF on the 7th May, on the same day that the FDC staff will share their
> assessments with the other applicants, in both cases to check for factual
> inaccuracies. The assessment will be posted publicly on the 8th May, on the
> same day that the FDC staff will publicly post their assessments.
>
> We would also like to encourage the other Wikimedia organisations to
> review the WMF's proposal, and to post comments and questions on the talk
> page for the proposal. It goes without saying that we also encourage
> Wikimedia community members to also review the WMF's proposal, and the
> other proposals in this round, and to similarly post comments and
> questions. Community feedback is important for the FDC work. The FDC will
> take all feedback into account during its deliberations next month. We will
> also be inviting specific community members with particular
> experience/skills to ask for their input on the proposals; please get in
> touch if you have any suggestions of community members that should be
> invited to do this.
>
> Thanks,
> Dariusz and Mike on behalf of the FDC
> ___
> 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

[Nathan]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
> Dariusz and Mike -
>
> I think this is a horrible idea.  WMDE is a direct beneficiary of both the
> WMF and the FDC decisions, and cannot be considered impartial in assessing
> the WMF proposals.
>
> I also question whether or not WMDE has the skill-set necessary to make the
> equivalent of a 'staff assessment' of the proposals, particularly in view
> of the FDC's comments about their goal-setting and assessment of outcomes
> for their own proposal.[1]
>
> 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.  Any assessment by the
> WMDE should represent its own perspective.
>
>
>
> Risker
>
>
>
>
I agree with Risker. If this were a round in which the FDC were being asked
to make a decision, it would be immediately clear to anyone that an entity
competing with the WMF for funding from the same pool couldn't be asked to
independently evaluate the WMF's request. Since the FDC is being asked to
evaluate the WMF in the same manner without making a recommendation, the
process should be a dry run and any clear conflicts avoided.

The same may be true in the future for the WMF staff evaluations. If the
FDC does not have the time or skill necessary to make complete assessments
of each proposal, they should contract with professional consultants rather
than rely on the evaluation of an interested party.
___
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 24 April 2014 15:08, Michael Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This round of proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
> presents a new and interesting challenge - that of reviewing the entirety
> of the Wikimedia Foundation's (WMF's) plan for the next year. As part of
> the FDC process, the WMF/FDC staff normally assemble a staff assessment of
> each proposal. In this case, however, the WMF/FDC staff have a potential
> bias here, since their work is included in the WMF's proposal.
>
> As a result, we have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), the second
> largest entity in our movement, to do the staff assessment of the WMF's
> proposal, and they have agreed to do this. WMDE will be adapting the
> framework of the standard staff assessment as they see fit in order to
> appropriately assess the WMF's proposal; the main expectation we have is
> that they will help identify the key strengths and weaknesses of the
> proposal in their assessment. They will be sharing their assessment with
> the WMF on the 7th May, on the same day that the FDC staff will share their
> assessments with the other applicants, in both cases to check for factual
> inaccuracies. The assessment will be posted publicly on the 8th May, on the
> same day that the FDC staff will publicly post their assessments.
>
> We would also like to encourage the other Wikimedia organisations to
> review the WMF's proposal, and to post comments and questions on the talk
> page for the proposal. It goes without saying that we also encourage
> Wikimedia community members to also review the WMF's proposal, and the
> other proposals in this round, and to similarly post comments and
> questions. Community feedback is important for the FDC work. The FDC will
> take all feedback into account during its deliberations next month. We will
> also be inviting specific community members with particular
> experience/skills to ask for their input on the proposals; please get in
> touch if you have any suggestions of community members that should be
> invited to do this.
>
> Thanks,
> Dariusz and Mike on behalf of the FDC
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 


Dariusz and Mike -

I think this is a horrible idea.  WMDE is a direct beneficiary of both the
WMF and the FDC decisions, and cannot be considered impartial in assessing
the WMF proposals.

I also question whether or not WMDE has the skill-set necessary to make the
equivalent of a 'staff assessment' of the proposals, particularly in view
of the FDC's comments about their goal-setting and assessment of outcomes
for their own proposal.[1]

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.  Any assessment by the
WMDE should represent its own perspective.



Risker



[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2013-2014_round1
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

This round of proposals to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) presents a 
new and interesting challenge - that of reviewing the entirety of the Wikimedia 
Foundation's (WMF's) plan for the next year. As part of the FDC process, the 
WMF/FDC staff normally assemble a staff assessment of each proposal. In this 
case, however, the WMF/FDC staff have a potential bias here, since their work 
is included in the WMF's proposal.

As a result, we have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), the second largest 
entity in our movement, to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal, and 
they have agreed to do this. WMDE will be adapting the framework of the 
standard staff assessment as they see fit in order to appropriately assess the 
WMF's proposal; the main expectation we have is that they will help identify 
the key strengths and weaknesses of the proposal in their assessment. They will 
be sharing their assessment with the WMF on the 7th May, on the same day that 
the FDC staff will share their assessments with the other applicants, in both 
cases to check for factual inaccuracies. The assessment will be posted publicly 
on the 8th May, on the same day that the FDC staff will publicly post their 
assessments.

We would also like to encourage the other Wikimedia organisations to review the 
WMF's proposal, and to post comments and questions on the talk page for the 
proposal. It goes without saying that we also encourage Wikimedia community 
members to also review the WMF's proposal, and the other proposals in this 
round, and to similarly post comments and questions. Community feedback is 
important for the FDC work. The FDC will take all feedback into account during 
its deliberations next month. We will also be inviting specific community 
members with particular experience/skills to ask for their input on the 
proposals; please get in touch if you have any suggestions of community members 
that should be invited to do this.

Thanks,
Dariusz and Mike on behalf of the FDC
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,