In my opinion you are under-evaluating the impact of your so-called "advices".
It's sufficient to compare the leaving of employees in chapters staff after and before these advices. Regards On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 > >> [email protected] > >> < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/[email protected] > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > >> <mailto:[email protected]?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 > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario> Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli> Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli> Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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>
