Risker <risker.wp@...> writes: > 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.
So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF departments to be evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the same room than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous. One can argue that the FDC asking movement entities to analyze the funding of other movement entities is a bad thing, but it has been the status quo ever since the FDC came into being, so asking WMDE to evaluate WMF is perfectly in line with past practice. There might be legitimate reasons for preferring that the WMF keep all the funding-recommendation-making power, instead of trying to distribute that power within the movement, but if that's the case, you should think about what those are instead of making red herring arguments about conflicts of interest. (Also, if that's the case, what would be the point of having the FDC? It was created exactly to "diminish the role of WMF", as you put it, and make the decision-making about funding a more collaborative process.) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>