2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>:

> 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.

Actually the information how GAC works is IMHO much more clear that
for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made
almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of
applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that
application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters
professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application
to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among
others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications
were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were
withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off
of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were
accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these
chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in
predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact.
Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is
for sure not a solution for professionalisation.


Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz

Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to