> > > I'm not quite sure I understand that. Can you maybe explain how the > Committee does currently determine the recommended amount? I mean, > practically speaking. I would have guessed that you do discuss indiviual > aspects and quantify the impact on your recommended allocation. > > > Practically, before our meeting we work on reading the proposals and evaluations, as well as community's feedback, and request additional information, if necessary. Then we make anonymous initial allocations. Then we meet and discuss each case in rounds (at least two per proposal, more or longer if necessary - e.g. we spent definitely more time discussing WMDE proposal than any other one this round). In each round we go into discussing the details of the project. In the first round we typically would end with additional anonymous allocation (each time we also see the results - how they are clustered, the mean, the median, deviation, etc.). After seeing the allocations we discuss WHY each of us proposes a cut/increase/full funding and have a free exchange of arguments. We repeat this process, then we move to "gradients of agreement" tool (allowing to express 7 different shades of agreement/disagreement for a proposed amount). We continue discussions and arguments, including considerations of what will need to be cut in terms of budgetary items, whether there may be need to make staff cuts (which we really try to treat responsibly, we know that people's lives are involved), until we have agreement on a certain allocation. In absolutely most cases the consensus is really high eventually.
dariusz "pundit" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
