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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> 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 >>> <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> >>> > >>> > > 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 >>> > > [email protected] >>> > > Unsubscribe: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > 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 >>> [email protected] >>> 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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
