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. best, 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 > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l