Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Michael Peel]

On 10 May 2014, at 19:43, Balázs Viczián  wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in
>> these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this
>> round:
>> 
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Financial_overview
>> 
>> 
> This page is empty.

Thanks for pointing that out; I've turned it into a redirect to the correct 
page.

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Balázs Viczián]

>
>
> You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in
> these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this
> round:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Financial_overview
>
>
This page is empty.

Vince
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Erlend,

I agree with you that chapter visits are a good idea and we should do more
systematically in this area.

We are aware that the smaller chapters cannot possibly have the capacity to
prepare the same kind of proposals as large chapters, and we mainly make
comparisons between organizations of the similar size in terms of their
projects, professionalization, etc.

We are also making an effort to start a series of supportive workshops for
board members. In any case, I think you're making excellent points and I'm
glad we are thinking pretty much in the same direction.

best,

dariusz "pundit"


On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:

> Thanks for your answer dariusz!
>
> Still, I think there are still 3 critical issues:
>
> It requires that chapters are really able to express, in a foreign
> language, advanced phenomena and characteristics of their work. I have seen
> grant applications that prove the opposite,
>
> The only thing I Ask for, is that you first grant someone 140'usd, and
> they apply for more, then at least you should visit that chapter. There Are
> not 20 such chapters, there Are close to 2. When you havn't even visited
> their chapter a single time ever, how can you then make up your mind about
> for example, their cooperative spirit, their ability to stage good events,
> the appropriatness of their office space for employee growth, their
> relations with the community, etc. Visits to chapters that apply or
> consider to apply for large grants, could make up for eventual language
> issues or other inabilites to express everything in written,
>
> The third is that the FDC does not Ask for consistent information over
> time, which brings on a risk of comparing metrics that aren't actually
> comparable. We experienced it this year, we have been required to report
> more metrics but they are not actually specified. And we experience
> ex-post questions about metrics that weren't asked ex-ante for. So everry
> chapter has to do a lot of guesswork, and comparison of results between,
> for example, wmse, wmno, and wmfr, is virtually impossible. In the absence
> of comparable output data, one typically reverts to Ask for desktop input
> data, risk-minimizing characteristica, and prosessual characteristica. The
> quarterly reporta could help a lot, and they indicate required metrics, but
> don't specified them. I could og dreper into this If required.
>
> Erlend
>
> Den lørdag 10. mai 2014 skrev Dariusz Jemielniak 
> følgende:
>
>>  hi Erlend,
>>
>> there is a systematic schedule of site visits by WMF, but obviously it
>> cannot be done for each chapter every year. From my grantmaking experience
>> with several major foundations, I have to say that doing assessments
>> basing
>> on desktop materials is typical. In fact, the professional standard, even
>> for foundations trying to keep close, friendly and intimate contact with
>> their organizations (like e.g. was within HESP Soros network, that I had a
>> chance to observe from within), relies on  rare site visits, (every couple
>> of years). I don't think that it would be a reasonable allocation of
>> resources to fly people to 20+ chapters every year - in fact, if we wanted
>> to do that, we'd have to have a separate person hired specifically for
>> that
>> purpose.
>>
>> The allocation of resources in our movement relies, to large extent, on
>> trust in the submitted material. In other words, we take what you write
>> about yourself for granted. Questions/comments serve further clarification
>> purposes.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz ("pundit")
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt > >wrote:
>>
>> > As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is
>> a
>> > mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
>> > assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
>> > knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation.
>> Foundation
>> > would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
>> > happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without
>> anyone
>> > in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program
>> impact
>> > in its local setting.
>> > As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical.
>> That
>> > should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
>> >
>> > Erlend Bjørtvedt
>> > Wmno
>> >
>> > Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker  følgende:
>> >
>> > > Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to
>> avoid a
>> > > potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
>> > > Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."
>> [1]
>> > >
>> > > If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
>> > > assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by
>> eliminating
>> > > the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia
>> Deutschland
>> > > (W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

Thanks for your answer dariusz!

Still, I think there are still 3 critical issues:

It requires that chapters are really able to express, in a foreign
language, advanced phenomena and characteristics of their work. I have seen
grant applications that prove the opposite,

The only thing I Ask for, is that you first grant someone 140'usd, and they
apply for more, then at least you should visit that chapter. There Are not
20 such chapters, there Are close to 2. When you havn't even visited their
chapter a single time ever, how can you then make up your mind about for
example, their cooperative spirit, their ability to stage good events, the
appropriatness of their office space for employee growth, their relations
with the community, etc. Visits to chapters that apply or consider to apply
for large grants, could make up for eventual language issues or other
inabilites to express everything in written,

The third is that the FDC does not Ask for consistent information over
time, which brings on a risk of comparing metrics that aren't actually
comparable. We experienced it this year, we have been required to report
more metrics but they are not actually specified. And we experience
ex-post questions about metrics that weren't asked ex-ante for. So everry
chapter has to do a lot of guesswork, and comparison of results between,
for example, wmse, wmno, and wmfr, is virtually impossible. In the absence
of comparable output data, one typically reverts to Ask for desktop input
data, risk-minimizing characteristica, and prosessual characteristica. The
quarterly reporta could help a lot, and they indicate required metrics, but
don't specified them. I could og dreper into this If required.

Erlend

Den lørdag 10. mai 2014 skrev Dariusz Jemielniak 
følgende:

> hi Erlend,
>
> there is a systematic schedule of site visits by WMF, but obviously it
> cannot be done for each chapter every year. From my grantmaking experience
> with several major foundations, I have to say that doing assessments basing
> on desktop materials is typical. In fact, the professional standard, even
> for foundations trying to keep close, friendly and intimate contact with
> their organizations (like e.g. was within HESP Soros network, that I had a
> chance to observe from within), relies on  rare site visits, (every couple
> of years). I don't think that it would be a reasonable allocation of
> resources to fly people to 20+ chapters every year - in fact, if we wanted
> to do that, we'd have to have a separate person hired specifically for that
> purpose.
>
> The allocation of resources in our movement relies, to large extent, on
> trust in the submitted material. In other words, we take what you write
> about yourself for granted. Questions/comments serve further clarification
> purposes.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz ("pundit")
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt 
> 
> >wrote:
>
> > As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a
> > mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
> > assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
> > knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation.
> Foundation
> > would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
> > happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone
> > in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program
> impact
> > in its local setting.
> > As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical.
> That
> > should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
> >
> > Erlend Bjørtvedt
> > Wmno
> >
> > Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker  følgende:
> >
> > > Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid
> a
> > > potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
> > > Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."
> [1]
> > >
> > > If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
> > > assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by
> eliminating
> > > the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia
> Deutschland
> > > (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
> > > explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if
> it
> > > desires.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Risker,
> > > >
> > > > It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
> > > out. I
> > > > have corrected it in the assessment.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Kasia
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Erlend,

there is a systematic schedule of site visits by WMF, but obviously it
cannot be done for each chapter every year. From my grantmaking experience
with several major foundations, I have to say that doing assessments basing
on desktop materials is typical. In fact, the professional standard, even
for foundations trying to keep close, friendly and intimate contact with
their organizations (like e.g. was within HESP Soros network, that I had a
chance to observe from within), relies on  rare site visits, (every couple
of years). I don't think that it would be a reasonable allocation of
resources to fly people to 20+ chapters every year - in fact, if we wanted
to do that, we'd have to have a separate person hired specifically for that
purpose.

The allocation of resources in our movement relies, to large extent, on
trust in the submitted material. In other words, we take what you write
about yourself for granted. Questions/comments serve further clarification
purposes.

best,

dariusz ("pundit")




On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:

> As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a
> mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
> assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
> knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation. Foundation
> would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
> happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone
> in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program impact
> in its local setting.
> As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical. That
> should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
>
> Erlend Bjørtvedt
> Wmno
>
> Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker  følgende:
>
> > Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a
> > potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
> > Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]
> >
> > If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
> > assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
> > the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
> > (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
> > explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
> > desires.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331
> >
> >
> > On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Risker,
> > >
> > > It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
> > out. I
> > > have corrected it in the assessment.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Kasia
> > >
> > >
> > > 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> > >
> > > > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> > > > request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> > > > it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the
> request,
> > > and
> > > > implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not
> completed
> > > any
> > > > assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the
> FDC,
> > > and
> > > > > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
> > > request,
> > > > > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
> > > true,
> > > > > although may sound misleading.
> > > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > >
> > > > > dj "pundit"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely
> > > agree
> > > > > with
> > > > > > the assessment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission;
> it
> > > was
> > > > > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the
> > > introduction
> > > > to
> > > > > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias
> assessing
> > > > their
> > > > > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
> (WMDE)
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
> > > consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > > what the FDC chair and member

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Erlend Bjørtvedt]

As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a
mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation. Foundation
would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone
in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program impact
in its local setting.
As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical. That
should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.

Erlend Bjørtvedt
Wmno

Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker  følgende:

> Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a
> potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
> Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]
>
> If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
> assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
> the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
> (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
> explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
> desires.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:
>
> > Hi Risker,
> >
> > It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
> out. I
> > have corrected it in the assessment.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kasia
> >
> >
> > 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> >
> > > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> > > request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> > > it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
> > and
> > > implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
> > >
> > > The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
> > any
> > > assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
> > >
> > > The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi,
> > > >
> > > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
> > and
> > > > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
> > request,
> > > > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
> > true,
> > > > although may sound misleading.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > >
> > > > dj "pundit"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely
> > agree
> > > > with
> > > > > the assessment.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
> > was
> > > > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the
> > introduction
> > > to
> > > > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> > > their
> > > > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
> > consistent
> > > > with
> > > > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on
> Wikimedia-L.
> > >  Did
> > > > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > > > .
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a
potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]

If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
(WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."  The FDC can
explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
desires.

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.&diff=0&oldid=8460331


On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek  wrote:

> Hi Risker,
>
> It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it out. I
> have corrected it in the assessment.
>
> Best,
> Kasia
>
>
> 2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :
>
> > Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> > request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> > it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
> and
> > implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
> >
> > The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
> any
> > assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
> >
> > The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
> and
> > > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
> request,
> > > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
> true,
> > > although may sound misleading.
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dj "pundit"
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely
> agree
> > > with
> > > > the assessment.
> > > >
> > > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
> was
> > > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the
> introduction
> > to
> > > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> > their
> > > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
> to
> > do
> > > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
> consistent
> > > with
> > > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.
> >  Did
> > > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > > .
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kasia Odrozek
> Vorstandsreferentin / Consultant to the Executive Director
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260
> Mobil: +49 151 46752534
>
> http://wikimedia.de 
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsreg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Kasia Odrozek]

Hi Risker,

It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it out. I
have corrected it in the assessment.

Best,
Kasia


2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker :

> Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
> it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request, and
> implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
>
> The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed any
> assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
>
> The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
>
>
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
> > not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
> > and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
> > although may sound misleading.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dj "pundit"
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree
> > with
> > > the assessment.
> > >
> > > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> > > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction
> to
> > > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
> their
> > > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to
> do
> > > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent
> > with
> > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.
>  Did
> > > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > > .
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > 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
> >
> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Kasia Odrozek
Vorstandsreferentin / Consultant to the Executive Director

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 (030) 219 158 260
Mobil: +49 151 46752534

http://wikimedia.de 

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
request, then the sentence is incorrect.  As it is currently written,
it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request, and
implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.

The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]

The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.

Risker/Anne



[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment




On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> hi,
>
> let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
> not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
> and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
> although may sound misleading.
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree
> with
> > the assessment.
> >
> > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> > partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
> > their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
> > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
> > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent
> with
> > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
> > the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> > .
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi,

let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC, and
not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this request,
and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus true,
although may sound misleading.

best,

dj "pundit"


On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree with
> the assessment.
>
> I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
> partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
> their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
> own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
> the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent with
> what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
> the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V
> .
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[Risker]

Thank you Winifred.  These appear to be very good, and I largely agree with
the assessment.

I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it was
partially reviewed by WMDE.  In the first sentence of the introduction to
their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their
own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do
the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not consistent with
what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on Wikimedia-L.  Did
the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC staff proposal assessments for 2013-2014 Round 2 are posted

[FDC Support Team]

Greetings, all:

Staff proposal assessments have been posted on Meta for three proposals that
were submitted in 2013-2014 Round 2. At the FDC's request, FDC staff have
not published an assessment for the WMF proposal; however, an assessment of
the WMF proposal has been published by WMDE.

The proposal assessments are each linked to from the "Proposals" page for
this round:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2
.

You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in
these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this
round:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Financial_overview
.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to
allocate Wikimedia movement funds to support an organization’s overall
annual plan to achieve mission objectives. We encourage you to visit the
portal if you would like more information about the FDC process, or would
like to discuss the process: http://meta.wikimedia
.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal.

Staff proposal assessments are but one of many inputs into the FDC process.
With this round's assessments we (FDC staff) have included a more detailed
explanation of our methodology. The assessments reflect the work of FDC
staff who read the proposals, review past and current reports, receive
internal input from WMF Finance, Programs, Legal, and Grantmaking, and
consider a portfolio view across all proposals in this round. They do not
reflect the analysis or views of the FDC or any of its individual members.
The FDC will meet in late may to deliberate on these proposals, and will
consider these staff proposal assessments along with many other inputs into
the FDC process. For more information about the purpose of these
assessments and
how they fit into the FDC process overall, please visit: http://meta.
wikimedia
.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Process_overview
.

We welcome discussion about individual assessments on the discussion page
of each assessment, or discussion about the process overall on the FDC
portal: *https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Comments
*.

Best regards from FDC staff!

Winifred

-- 
Winifred Olliff
FDC Support Team
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,