On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value in
> having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a position
> where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE staff
> has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our
> movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders specifically
> for comments, and so it did.
> best,
> dariusz "pundit"

There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished -
to usurp the role of staff analysis.  I'm really sad that you can't see
that, Dariusz.  You're better off having the staff do the analysis of
everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as
it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC.

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

Reply via email to