well, the fundamental question regarding the "centralisation of funds" is
whether we agree that some chapters have higher impact ability (in terms of
effectiveness, results, etc.) and should be prioritized in terms of funding
access, or whether any decisions about funds distribution based on project
analysis are fundamentally wrong.  If we agree that the role of the FDC is
not only to approve all projects that come in, but also to actively try to
evaluate them and occasionally recommend cutting or denying funds from this
particular source (while recommending going to others), one thing is
guaranteed: the chapters, which do not receive funding, will be
disappointed and often will express it, round after round. This should not
necessarily be mistaken for a flaw in the FDC process per se, although
always some concrete comments and complaints about the process should be
considered fully by the ombudsperson, the board, and the community (after
all, all projects, discussions about them, as well as assessments are
available to read).

The question whether a different FDC composition would evaluate the
projects differently is definitely valid, although when 7 (and soon 9)
members of the community, all with significant chapter and/or grants
experience actually reach a consensus on some issue, I would assume that
this agreement may likely be replicable. Nevertheless, there will always
also be borderline cases where there is no consensus, and yet a decision
has to be made (round 2 went through unanimously though).

My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.

Ilario - some general matrix of evaluation is indeed a useful idea. The
current for does attempt to address this a little, but definitely it can be
improved, and this was also part of the feedback from the community during
the chapters conference. Definitely work need to be done in this area, too.


dariusz "pundit"

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
> > *personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
> > evaluate it differently.
> And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the centralisation of
> funds came in.
> (I take no joy whatsoever in noting that we told WMF so, and WMF
> actively chose to ignore it.)
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to