> Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my own view, and not in the > capacity of the FDC chair).
To be extra clear, as Dariusz was: anything I say in this thread is my own view, not a statement in the capacity of WMF Trustee. Freeform discussion of what is possible is important, and I hope people will share their thoughts even if they are not one of the parties involved. SJ On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Craig Franklin > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks SJ for these thoughts, it's gratifying and encouraging that we have >> a WMF trustee on the case :-) > > The Board FDC liaisons are putting more thought into this than I am; > I'm just brainstorming quickly on the mailing list and encouraging > more of the same :-) > >> While getting chapter staff to likewise review reports is a good idea, >> there are two potential problems that I can see with it: >> >> 1. Chapter staff may be unwilling to criticise the reports of other >> chapters that they're hoping to embark on joint projects with > > Yes. WMF staff may have the same potential concerns (and joint > projects). Other options such as outside review (as you suggest) are > also available; but these brief reviews should be much less difficult > and controversial than the FDC decisions. > >> 2. The various funding programs available through the WMF (FDC, GAC) make >> no secret of the fact that they want staff to be doing programme work, >> *not* administrative or overhead work. It would be difficult for most >> chapters to spare the resources to do this properly. > > Perhaps. If we're organizing an increasing number of things into > programs with plans, timelines, and metrics: then every community > needs to develop some facility for refactoring, reviewing, measuring, > and tracking projects. That sort of self-reflection is essential to > daily work, and should happen regularly at the lowest possible level; > so I'm not comfortable framing it as costly overhead. That's like > saying that organizing an RfC is costly overhead. > > Moreover some of the program work of local groups involves overseeing > microgrants. Which requires specific facility in this sort of review. > >> Perhaps the movement could look at getting an external firm in to do the >> assessment? It would probably be costly, but if the firm is properly >> chosen it should at least minimise any COI concerns. Of course, their >> reporting can and should be supported by vigourous assessment by the >> community. > > This is certainly an option if it proves essential and worth the > expense. I'd like to see how simply and inexpensively we can > accomplish the same thing, however. I'd rather see this become less > of a big deal - a rolling process that many people can contribute to, > in steps - than more of one. > > SJ -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
