On 23 November 2014 at 22:30, pajz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23 November 2014 at 11:25, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought > > they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly > > what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need > > to change in order to bid more successfully. > > > > I am not entirely sure about this. My concern is essentially that it is > unclear to me how the FDC determines the extent of the cuts it makes and > which item(s) of the budget get(s) cut by what amount of money. For > instance, when to Committee suggests to reduce the allocation to WMDE by > EUR 360,000 vis-à-vis what they requested (-30%), it is not clear to me how > the Committee arrived at that amount of money. >
Just noting here that I think this is an excellent point. It's not entirely clear in some cases why the allocation has been cut by a specific amount. I can appreciate that the FDC has good reasons for not giving an entity what it has asked for, but at the same time it should be able to explain clearly how they arrived at the reduced figure. The other danger of across the board cuts like this, especially where the rationale is not clear, is that entities may start to inflate their requests, factoring an expected 10% or 20% to be shaved off the top by the FDC, thus leaving them with the figure that they *really *want. If the rationale is clearly explained, this will probably be less of a factor. Cheers, Craig Franklin _______________________________________________ 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>
