On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you for the update, Alex.
>
> I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking
> committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if the
> override is to approve a proposal. I understand that WMF might find a
> reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds
> something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as that
> the grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking
> committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it anyway,
> I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests that
> the WMF isn't serious about its own grantmaking process.
>
As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF and
applicants) and implicit in that is that its opinions -- while always taken
carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will be in opposition to the
final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and we
are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to imply by "previously had
agreed to work with") in doing so. We are doing our job.
Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against
which the committee has "develop[ed] consensus". Take another look at the
examples you brought yourself -- one "oppose" vote in a committee of 28
does not consensus make.
I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current
> system is not working, as everyone seems to agree.
I disagree. In fact no one agrees "the system is not working", as far as I
can tell, except you. On the contrary "the system", i.e. the Project and
Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a less-than-desired
level of participation in its advisory committee. While that is certainly
something we are endeavoring to improve (recognizing, of course, it is
ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and means),
it should not be taken to mean "the system is not working".
> I am curious, what alternatives are you exploring?
>
You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3].
Cheers,
Asaf
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
