Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here: I think this is, even
while not perfect, a practical implementation of what FDC has been asked to
do. I haven't hear any alternatives that would really be /better/ and good
to implement at this moment.

But maybe things could be different next year. I suggest that people who
have good ideas for alternative organizations bring that up with that in
mind for next year (in a few months or so, when the FDC is less swamped
with work).

Lodewijk


2014-04-27 23:51 GMT+02:00 Risker <risker...@gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to