hi, I am no certain that we could (or should) account for every 10% cut by apportioning it to something (10% because of governance, 10% because of lack of clarify of proposal, etc.). But of course this is not necessarily what you're proposing, you're asking for MORE detail, basically.
Please, observe that we did recommend Wikidata to be fully sustained. Also, remember, that all appeals are not going to the FDC at all - we will not have ANY opportunity to argue one way or another in case of all appeals. The Board will consider them, and will base not only on our recommendations, but also on the notes from confidential proceedings of the FDC committee (two Board members are non-voting observers). There is also an ombudsperson overseeing the whole process formally. In any case, I understand that it would be more desirable to see every dollar cut connected to one item of our feedback. I am not certain, though, if we will be able to do so in the future in all cases (but we may try, when possible). best, dariusz "pundit" On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:43 PM, pajz <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dariusz, > > On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly. We >> would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be >> funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds. >> > > While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a requirement > to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently > why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of > it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any > means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions > on the use of allocated funds. > > My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a > list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC > members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing > is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and > reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a > discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC > should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is > sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be > made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about > governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to > jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't > generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel > comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think > that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by > that amount." > > Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of > accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts > make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give > six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, > without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the > chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third > argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five > others!". > > Best wishes, > Patrik > -- __________________________ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ 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>
