Dear Deryck, I am also sorry to read this. Thank you for sharing your reflections, they are always welcome.
The FDC is an experiment in peer review, one that I think holds promise. It was designed in part to avoid 'mainstream charity bureaucracy'. But this is its first year, and there will be rough spots along the way. Your feedback will improve the process. This public list is a fine place for the discussion. An ombudsperson and a complaint process are part of the design, both public: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2 Nathan writes: > Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about > what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like Christophe writes: > [We need] a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC > proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :) Both practical ideas. Support for the first stages of growth should be handled differently from later infrastructure support. Also: - More continuous feedback is needed. - Eligibility should be simple and unchanging throughout the process. - Whether or not a proposal is approved, there should be follow-up support to help applicants figure out next steps. Regards, SJ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l