On 27 April 2014 22:04, Gergo Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I'm still taking the position that the FDC shouldn't be reviewing anything
that does not include a direct funding request from an eligible entity.
However, if we're going to be absurd, then at least we should be
consistently absurd, and have the same people doing the "staff assessment"
of a proposal that the FDC cannot approve.  Any entity can comment on
anyone else's proposal under their own auspices.  Granting special
authority and a higher degree of importance to any of the entities to
review the WMF proposal sets that reviewing entity at a higher level than
any other commenter, including other movement entities.  Why is WMDE's
opinion more relevant than, say, WMIT?  or WMIN?  or WMPL? or CIS?  Or
French Wikipedia's?  Or Swahili Wikisource's?

Indeed, I'd say that they'd be better off to ask the Board Audit Committee
to do the assessment rather than having any individual entity do it.

> 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.)

The WMF isn't keeping all the funding recommendation making power.  WMF
staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with the
FDC, and post their results.  The FDC reviews the analysis, asks additional
questions, notes the responses to questions directed at the applicants, and
makes their decision; the WMF does not have the opportunity to overrule
them, only the Board of Trustees does.

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

Reply via email to