Hi Risker,

On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> However, having accepted the validity of the "proposal", the FDC does not
> have the authority to delegate its role.

I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking 
WMDE to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for 
WMDE from last round:
This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a 
separate document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None 
of the role of the FDC itself has been delegated here.

> particularly when there are obvious conflicts of
> interest involved.  The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on
> the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the
> impartiality of the FDC as a whole.

In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has 
when they do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that 
WMDE/WMF aren't in direct competition for money from the same pot here.

> It's all well and good for your
> members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but
> with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups,
> your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be
> significantly stronger.  There was good reason for concern that the FDC is
> becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility.

I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big 
problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, 
but I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this?


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

Reply via email to