Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Dear all, The Wikimedia UK board discussed the FDC's allocation proposals this morning. We thank the FDC and the staff involved in the process for their hard work and detailed consideration. We accept their proposed allocation. We also had a productive discussion in the light of the FDC's feedback on the deliverability of aspects of our plan, and will bear these in mind as we develop our 2013 budget. We will be providing some feedback about aspects of the process in the next couple of weeks. Regards, Chris Wikimedia UK Chair ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On Nov 17, 2012 7:28 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > > Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25: > >> I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a >> discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she >> hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was >> thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I >> thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more >> detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > > You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a body, i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down. I don't they just plucked the numbers out of thin air. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25: I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). You may be right here, but let me point out a major unstated assumption in your reasoning: that the FDC has or had something more to say as a body, i.e. reached an agreement on more than what they already wrote down. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Yes, I know ;) But it certainly has a effect, larger or smaller. Probably, you would be faster if you can write a report in Polish and you discussed with others in Polish. 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of > the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an > excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the > entities. > > dariusz > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito < > os...@wikimediachile.cl> wrote: > >> I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you >> say it is irrelevant? Boo... >> (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the >> movement, not only about the FDC) >> >> >> 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak >> >>> >>> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us >>> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with >>> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to >>> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the >>> message to the letter. >>> >>> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work >>> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and >>> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought >>> alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own >>> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that >>> we >>> are fine with. >>> >>> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to >>> provide >>> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that >>> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and >>> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make >>> sure >>> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. >>> >>> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to >>> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, >>> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely >>> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making >>> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and >>> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the >>> chapters' side). >>> >>> best, >>> >>> Dariusz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I >>> would >>> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change >>> and so >>> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and >>> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even >>> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each >>> chapter, >>> > but about the process as a whole. >>> > >>> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any >>> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you >>> can't >>> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. >>> > >>> > Osmar Valdebenito G. >>> > >>> > >>> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton >>> > >>> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a >>> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that >>> she >>> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was >>> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. >>> I >>> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much >>> more >>> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). >>> > > >>> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A >>> well >>> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other >>> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details >>> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, >>> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of >>> > > time is saved by writing good reports. >>> > > >>> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we >>> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a >>> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board >>> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, >>> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what >>> it >>> > > is actually meant to achieve. >>> > > >>> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, >>> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is >>> > > worth doing properly. >>> > > >>> > > ___ >>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > > Unsubscribe: >>> https://li
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the entities. dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you > say it is irrelevant? Boo... > (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the > movement, not only about the FDC) > > > 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > >> >> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us >> have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with >> NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to >> it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the >> message to the letter. >> >> One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work >> relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and >> different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought >> alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own >> models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that >> we >> are fine with. >> >> I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to >> provide >> detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that >> we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and >> rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure >> that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. >> >> However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to >> make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, >> is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely >> do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making >> efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and >> collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the >> chapters' side). >> >> best, >> >> Dariusz >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito >> wrote: >> >> > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I >> would >> > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and >> so >> > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and >> > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even >> > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each >> chapter, >> > but about the process as a whole. >> > >> > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any >> > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you >> can't >> > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. >> > >> > Osmar Valdebenito G. >> > >> > >> > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton >> > >> > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a >> > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she >> > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was >> > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I >> > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more >> > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). >> > > >> > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well >> > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other >> > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details >> > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, >> > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of >> > > time is saved by writing good reports. >> > > >> > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we >> > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a >> > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board >> > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, >> > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it >> > > is actually meant to achieve. >> > > >> > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, >> > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is >> > > worth doing properly. >> > > >> > > ___ >> > > 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you say it is irrelevant? Boo... (by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement, not only about the FDC) 2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak > > Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us > have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with > NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to > it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the > message to the letter. > > One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work > relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and > different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought > alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own > models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we > are fine with. > > I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide > detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that > we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and > rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure > that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. > > However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to > make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, > is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely > do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making > efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and > collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the > chapters' side). > > best, > > Dariusz > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito > wrote: > > > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I > would > > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and > so > > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and > > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even > > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, > > but about the process as a whole. > > > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > > > Osmar Valdebenito G. > > > > > > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > > > > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > > > > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > > > time is saved by writing good reports. > > > > > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > > > is actually meant to achieve. > > > > > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > > > worth doing properly. > > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
They did their job to evaluate more than 10 extensive applications, make their recommendations and provide a long report. They have even answered the questions and probably will be able to do if you have more questions. That was they work as volunteer and they did it. Probably everybody would like something different (as more details about every chapters) but they are not our employees and they have their right to say "We think that is enough". And once again, I want to remember that not everybody here speaks or write English as a native. Sometimes is really easy to demand people to write long reports, speak and engage in discussions when you have the privilege to be a speaker of the "global language", but it is not easy for all of us. This is something that must be considered if we are talking about "global movement", "inclusion of developing countries" and so on. Osmar Valdebenito G. 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito > wrote: > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are > making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just > volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. > Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation > to do it. > > I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - > they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, > at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't > an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we > wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff > can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers > do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still > require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to > find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we > need to re-think it. > > ___ > 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
thanks, Osmar. I don't have to state the obvious, that over the last couple of weeks we've been putting several hours per day into the FDC process, besides our real jobs, and besides the 4-day session we held. This is what needed to be done and we have no complaints and Thomas is right that being a volunteer is no excuse. It actually means that we participate voluntary, by free will, and without lowering any of the professional standards we bring from our real life. Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant - all of us have experience in writing longer pieces, most of us have experience with NGO evaluation, finance, or management, and handling documents related to it. What takes much more time that actual writing down is agreeing on the message to the letter. One thing that I'm really proud of is that we have been able to work relying on the consensus principle, and many varied perspectives and different angles of analysis (including e.g. areas where we sought alternatives to the analyses provided by FDC staff and created our own models and simulations) came down to a recommendation we all agreed that we are fine with. I don't think it is realistic now to expect that we will be able to provide detailed feedback for each of the entities, also because of the fact that we treat reaching a consensus very seriously. We have been writing and rewriting the recommendation you have seen for quite a while, to make sure that it reflects our consensus fully, and it takes time. However, I hear your feedback and all of us at the FDC will think how to make sure that the whole process, and the amount of work and discussions, is more reflected in the final outcome of a recommendation. We definitely do not want to be a professional blackbox, and we've been really making efforts to make the application and project discussion transparent and collaborative (and we do hope it will be even more so, also from the chapters' side). best, Dariusz On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would > love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so > on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and > where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even > consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, > but about the process as a whole. > > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. > > Osmar Valdebenito G. > > > 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > > > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > > time is saved by writing good reports. > > > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > > is actually meant to achieve. > > > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > > worth doing properly. > > > > ___ > > 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
Dear Dariusz, dear Jan-Bart, Thank you very much for the hard work, you are volunteers as we all are. I am also admiring your insight and - pacience. A short note on the WCA: The WCA has never asked contributions from the member chapters, and there is still no budget. We will see how it will be financed in future, and I am confident that there will be found a reasonable solution. Kind regards Ziko -- --- Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter http://wmnederland.nl/ Wikimedia Nederland Postbus 167 3500 AD Utrecht --- ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito wrote: > Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any > problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't > expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a position like that, you are making a commitment to put in the necessary work. The "we're just volunteers" excuse gets rolled out far too often around here. Volunteers that have made commitments to do a job have an obligation to do it. I want to be clear, I'm not saying the FDC haven't done their job - they seem to have considered the issues very well and the report is, at least, satisfactory. I'm just saying that being a volunteer isn't an excuse. We should make certain allowances for volunteers that we wouldn't make for staff (particularly, we have to be flexible - staff can be expected to be at their desks between 9am and 5pm, volunteers do their work whenever then get a spare moment), but we should still require that jobs are done well. If it turns out to be impossible to find volunteers willing and able to do a particular job well, then we need to re-think it. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even consider that the report is long enough, probably not about each chapter, but about the process as a whole. Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'. Osmar Valdebenito G. 2012/11/16 Thomas Dalton > I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a > discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she > hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was > thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I > thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more > detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). > > Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well > written report can be read in isolation (with references to other > documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details > should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, > but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of > time is saved by writing good reports. > > It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we > never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a > regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board > meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, > so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it > is actually meant to achieve. > > Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, > although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is > worth doing properly. > > ___ > 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] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I thought a lot more time was needed because I was expecting a much more detailed report (about one side of A4 per application, perhaps). Report writing is something we are, as a movement, very bad at. A well written report can be read in isolation (with references to other documents for more detail if it is desired, but essential details should be in the report itself). It takes longer to write, certainly, but it takes a lot less time to read and digest, so overall a lot of time is saved by writing good reports. It's something that comes up annually with regards to Wikimania - we never get a decent report from the organisers. I also see it on a regular basis with Wikimedia UK - someone brings a subject to a board meeting for discussion without having produced a proper report on it, so the discussion is uninformed, unstructured and nobody knows what it is actually meant to achieve. Perhaps we could organise some reporting writing training for people, although I think the real problem is convincing people that it is worth doing properly. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC recommendations on funds allocation, Round 1, 2012-13
On 16 nov. 2012, at 10:18, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi Jan-Bart, > > I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be > subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who > else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that > anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that you > experienced my feedback in such negative way. Hey So no its not obvious that you were stating your own opinion, you often formulate things in such as way that they are not presented as your personal opinion but attempt instead to somehow come across as the "general" opinion. Thats at least how I read them. > > But similarly, I wouldn't want to mistake the opinion of individual FDC > members for the reasoning of the committee as a whole. The comments made on > the talk pages are made by individuals (sometimes not even members), and > not by the committee - that is why I dont want to assume that they are > shared by the committee as a whole. You don't have to :) > > As I understand the process, there was a big preperation - that preperation > is well documented. Also, the way the process has been followed (in all > it's abstractism) has been well documented - this is helpful for > understanding the process better next time of course and valuable. However, > then there is this 4 day meeting. And suddenly, all information available > seems to be missing - unless I'm overlooking something. I know you have > been present at the meeting, so you might read things differently than I > do. But from the arguments given I really have a hard time understanding > what the reasons have been regarding the different decisions. This is not a > simple general hunger for more details (which is there as well, I'll agree > on that), but it is just not being able to understand. > So in the build up to the meeting on the 26th of October there was a lot of public part to the process. The meeting was completed 2 weeks ago and it took two weeks to finalize the recommendations in writing, come to common language etc. This is a 2 week period... how can "all information suddenly be missing"? And again. Getting the FDC to agree on wording etc. is essential, and the FDC decided to agree on the "main" issues per application (and in some case that might prove not to be enough > I do not disagree that the time spent asking questions publicly was worth > while - but this is all (as far as I understand it) before the 4 day > retreat. Before actual committee decisions started. > the reason why the deadline for the recommendations was set for the 15th of November was to allow the FDC members to document their decisions and their reasoning. That takes time (and it not a lack of information, it is taking the time needed to carefully go through everything). This is the information level they decided on, if you feel that more is needed, that is your opinion but please realize that a team working across different time zones only has so much time to work together (and that all these people are volunteers who took time to travel to san francisco to spend four days in a stuffy meeting room...) But I will let them answer for themselves if they feel they want to. > Now I can indeed go to the talk pages and proposals, combine it with some > general comments made by Dariusz and probably come to an 80% understanding > by guessing. However, call me silly but I wouldn't like to rely on the > quality of my own guesswork to understand the committee's decision. > You don't have to , I think that the proposals + Questions asked + staff assesments + FDC comments will get you there in 95% of the cases. But then again, I might be wrong, and in some cases the FDC does need to share more information. As you know we have entered a 7 day period in which the chapters can comment on the recommendations, and we can see if the board requires more information before being able to approve the FDC recommendations (in which case the board will publicly ask for that information and the FDC will publicly share that information (if not limited by some confidentiality) Finally: just to warn you: the FDC has now posted its recommendations, there are seven days during which participants can comment/object... and the board decides by December 15th. While that decision might take place before the 15th of december, it is likely to be two or three weeks away from today THIS IS NOT AN INFORMATION BLACKOUT! It is not a lack of transparency... its just the time we need to read through and discuss and finally vote. Jan-Bart > >> Hey Lodewijk, >> >> So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the >> situation and present it as the "general view". You cite a bad precedent >> and lack of sufficient detail. Lets be clear: this is bad in YOUR view and >> YOU feel that there should be more detail, that does not mean that this is >> true. A movement like ours a
