Risker: just to confirm one way or another, when you say " which you
shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for
the FDC," are you referring to the FDC evaluating the efficacy of the FDC's
grants in particular, or of all WMF grantmaking programs?  I would agree
that the former is definitely problematic, but I'm not convinced of the
latter.  I think they could probably review something like PEG with no
problem, and probably do so quite well since the FDC is accumulating
grantmaking expertise, and doesn't realistically compete with PEG for
funding or anything like that.

Sorry for only commenting on one aspect, I'm still working out the others
in my head.

Best,
Kevin Gorman


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org>wrote:

> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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