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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment 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? Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ 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>