As someone who has engaged with several different grants, in different roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just said.
Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant program were run in such a way that there *wasn't* any visible disagreement, that would be a problem. I think those working on this program have, over the years, done an admirable job of working through the inevitable disagreements. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
