Hoi,
Ever heard of "cherry picking" and of independent organisations ? If I were
to be dependent on this process I would hate it SOOO much.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 November 2014 at 23:30, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
> > wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other
> chapters
> > as well?) to fund some projects (in this case Wikidata) outside of the
> FDC
> > process. Is this borne out of a general strategic consideration of the
> FDC
> > or is this something specific to the Wikidata project? In WMDE's case it
> > sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously
> if
> > one moves the one big "success" out of the ordinary FDC process, this
> gives
> > the FDC completely free hand in setting next year's allocation at no risk
> > of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
> > it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
> > other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
> > funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
> > grants programs of the WMF, right?
> >
> > I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme
> per
> se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target
> best projects and guarantee their undisturbed financing. This can
> definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is
> precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this
> to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure),
> we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we
> know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be
> because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small,
> mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow
> them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven
> stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although
> the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of
> a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be
> scratched.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
> best,
>
> dj
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
