On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49:
>>  Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding.  If a staff assessment is needed, then
>>> it needs to be done by staff.
>> Inappropriate metonymy here, "staff" doesn't equal "WMF staff". Anyway,
>> [citation needed].
> Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the
> request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then
> community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official, partial
> assessment by a conflicted group that isn't "staff", has no experience
> using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do a
> complete the full assessment.  The FDC does not have its own staff; it has
> WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in accord
> with the FDC structure approved by the Board.  The FDC doesn't get to pick
> who does the assessments.

i must say i like the proceeding of the WMF to early get feedback on
its annual plan, and i even like more that they decided to just dump
it into some standard process we already have. i also like the
proceeding of the FDC. if they are not the sock-puppet of somebody
they should be free to take whatever measure to better judge
proposals. and - as always - everybody is free to comment on the wiki
page and mailing list separately. and with it influence the outcome. i
like as well as there is a tendency to make it less complicated, and
involve less parties. especially less parties who do not contribute to
wikipedia, whose main achievement is to write an invoice and bring the
admin - project spending rate into unhealthy spheres.

just for the ones interested in the link of the WMF proposal:


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

Reply via email to