Given that this is an assessment that is being performed by paid staff, I think it's unreasonable to think that the staff would issue more than very mild criticism ("Your report is so great it makes everyone else look terrible!"), even if the report was so poor as to deserve criticism. I'm not saying that it *is*, but I don't think anyone that values their job would carpet their employer in a public forum, even if the employer invited them to do so. There should certainly be a note in this report to declare the massive COI involved in having WMF staff 'critically' assessing a WMF report.
That said, I do find the assessment for everyone else useful in terms of seeing what the WMF staff will think, and I'm sure that chapters considering an FDC application will take that on board. I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative metrics over everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable activities rather than the most effective and worthwhile activities. Hopefully this will be taken into account on future assessments. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12 June 2013 20:52, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Katy Love, 11/06/2013 22:52: > >> [2] >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/** >> 2012-2013_round1/Staff_**summary/Progress_report_form/**Q1<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Staff_summary/Progress_report_form/Q1> >> > > Funny: «WMF notes [stats]», «WMFR claims [stats]». > > Nemo > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l