On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dariusz and Mike - > > I think this is a horrible idea. WMDE is a direct beneficiary of both the > WMF and the FDC decisions, and cannot be considered impartial in assessing > the WMF proposals. > > I also question whether or not WMDE has the skill-set necessary to make the > equivalent of a 'staff assessment' of the proposals, particularly in view > of the FDC's comments about their goal-setting and assessment of outcomes > for their own proposal.[1] > > Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an > independent third party review if it feels that there is not the necessary > ability for the FDC to produce its own assessment. Any assessment by the > WMDE should represent its own perspective. > > > > Risker > > > > I agree with Risker. If this were a round in which the FDC were being asked to make a decision, it would be immediately clear to anyone that an entity competing with the WMF for funding from the same pool couldn't be asked to independently evaluate the WMF's request. Since the FDC is being asked to evaluate the WMF in the same manner without making a recommendation, the process should be a dry run and any clear conflicts avoided.
The same may be true in the future for the WMF staff evaluations. If the FDC does not have the time or skill necessary to make complete assessments of each proposal, they should contract with professional consultants rather than rely on the evaluation of an interested party. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
