well, we do have detailed discussions, as you describe. It is the final allocation that fundamentally DOES NOT rely on an assumption that it is the FDC, who should point to what needs to be cut. All in all, this is unrestricted funding scheme - all of our recommendations are basically advice, we cannot really make demands on what needs to be expanded, and what needs to be shut down.
So I believe that the model of decision-making is directly related to the fact that chapters receive unrestricted funding anyway. There are many layers of accountability, but indeed a bystander cannot exactly pit each dollar cut to a particular argument - we only give reasonably detailed feedback to organizations as a whole, since the total allocation is, again, unrestricted. best, dj "pundit" On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 5:57 PM, pajz <pajzm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you, Dariusz, for your explanations. I did not imagine the decision > to be formed that way. I would have assumed that you look at individual > proposals / budgets, discuss them, identify potential weaknessess, and then > go through that list of potential weaknesses and discuss their budgetary > implications. (Incidentally, someone points out at the German Wikipedia's > Kurier talk page right now that the FDC's cut to WMCH's proposal is roughly > equal to the cost of the additional staff intended for the Kiwix project, > which at least re-assures me that I'm not the only person with that view on > the process.) Hmm. Well, in this case, of course, the process in > unaccountable by design, in the sense that if the Committee reports "We > felt that A," then nobody can ever know how that feeling (as opposed to 10 > other feelings by FDC members) impacted the recommended amount. > > I'm not saying this approach is generally "wrong" or anything, I just have > doubts it is a good one. I personally would fear that such a design fosters > budget decisions that are based too much on gut feeling as opposed to the > actual deficiencies of the proposal. And for the affected chapters it's > basically impossible to make a substantiated appeal, just as it is > basically impossible for the public to criticize a decision in a > substantiated way, since I can only criticize your reported findings, but > never ever know how each of them relates to the actual outcome of the > process (which, of course, is what matters). > > Patrik > > On 23 November 2014 at 16:28, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > 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 >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > -- __________________________ 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
