Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile. How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Members/Dariusz_Jemielniak Vince 2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>: > we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years > of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is > true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, > or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC. > > If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) > does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements. > > Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need > people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people > with experience from chapter boards, for instance. > > best, > > dariusz "pundit" > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all. >> >> If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about >> writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had >> any specific experience in _reviewing_ them. >> >> To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between >> writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :) >> >> Vince >> >> 2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>: >> >>> yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that >>> members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for >>> bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :) >>> >>> best, >>> >>> dj >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián >>> <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> "initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its >>>> preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable. >>>> >>>> Vince >>>> >>>> 2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the >>>>> level >>>>> of >>>>> really small chapters in our movement. >>>>> >>>>> I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you >>>>> assuming >>>>> that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, >>>>> community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the >>>>> Foundation). >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your >>>>> further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it >>>>> whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't >>>>> just >>>>> as well as (b) failed attempts. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> dj "pundit" >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > ~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros? >>>>> > >>>>> > The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget >>>>> means >>>>> > to justify that to the stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than >>>>> > previously because the chapters have to find external funds. >>>>> > >>>>> > This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a >>>>> > lot). >>>>> > >>>>> > I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those >>>>> > individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization, >>>>> service or >>>>> > project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, >>>>> > resources, targets or deliverables". >>>>> > >>>>> > WMF is one stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the >>>>> > associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are >>>>> > stakeholders and so on. >>>>> > >>>>> > In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter >>>>> because WMF >>>>> > is *one of the stakeholders*. >>>>> > >>>>> > And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a >>>>> decision >>>>> > like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy >>>>> in >>>>> > order to attract stakeholders. >>>>> > >>>>> > Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the >>>>> > risk, >>>>> the >>>>> > consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder >>>>> with >>>>> > less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of >>>>> > the >>>>> > chapter. >>>>> > >>>>> > This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of >>>>> biggest >>>>> > budget. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > > Hi Balazs, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion >>>>> > > of >>>>> the >>>>> > FDC >>>>> > > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but >>>>> I was >>>>> > an >>>>> > > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and >>>>> ran a >>>>> > > ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination >>>>> > > board >>>>> for >>>>> > > >>>>> > > best, >>>>> > > >>>>> > > dariusz "pundit" >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < >>>>> > > [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > > >>>>> > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is >>>>> more >>>>> > > > or less on its maximum I think. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the >>>>> closest >>>>> > > > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review - >>>>> it is >>>>> > > > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a >>>>> > > > full "business plan" - review) >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, >>>>> > > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global >>>>> goals, >>>>> > > > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you >>>>> > > > say >>>>> it >>>>> > > > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and >>>>> > > > inexperienced >>>>> > > > group of people are handling >>>>> > > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it >>>>> works >>>>> > > > pretty well. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from >>>>> > > > such >>>>> a >>>>> > > setup. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes >>>>> that >>>>> > > > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated >>>>> > > > ombudsperson for the case(s). >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are >>>>> visibly >>>>> > > > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a >>>>> > > > real >>>>> > > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the >>>>> > > > "incoherentness" of reviews. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical >>>>> changes to >>>>> > > > the system imo. >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > Balazs >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli <[email protected]>: >>>>> > > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare >>>>> three >>>>> > > > years, >>>>> > > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider >>>>> that >>>>> > > > Amical >>>>> > > > > is the best example to follow. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than >>>>> other >>>>> > > > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is >>>>> > > > surrealistic. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: >>>>> > > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a >>>>> strong >>>>> > > glue >>>>> > > > > within the community >>>>> > > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = >>>>> > organization >>>>> > > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external >>>>> > > > > or >>>>> > > internal >>>>> > > > > questions (may be the opposite) >>>>> > > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest >>>>> to look >>>>> > > in >>>>> > > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter >>>>> and to >>>>> > > check >>>>> > > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German >>>>> > community >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been >>>>> > > > > a >>>>> good >>>>> > > > > solution to improve the community participation to the >>>>> > > > > projects. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot >>>>> in the >>>>> > > > > biggest projects. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the >>>>> > diversity >>>>> > > > and >>>>> > > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the >>>>> historical >>>>> > > > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but >>>>> there >>>>> > are >>>>> > > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential" >>>>> editors >>>>> > > and >>>>> > > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the >>>>> > > > > decreasing >>>>> is >>>>> > not >>>>> > > > > beneficial. >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > regards >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" <[email protected]> >>>>> > > > > ha >>>>> > > scritto: >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >> Hi Patrik, >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the >>>>> majority >>>>> > of >>>>> > > > the >>>>> > > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests >>>>> to the >>>>> > > FDC >>>>> > > > >> for >>>>> > > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around >>>>> strategic >>>>> > > > >> planning, >>>>> > > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount >>>>> of >>>>> > room >>>>> > > > for >>>>> > > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement >>>>> > > > >> (including >>>>> the >>>>> > > WMF.) >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the >>>>> largest >>>>> > > > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to >>>>> > > > >> deliver >>>>> > impact >>>>> > > to >>>>> > > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In >>>>> many >>>>> > > > instances >>>>> > > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to >>>>> develop >>>>> > > and >>>>> > > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making >>>>> recommendations >>>>> > > > about >>>>> > > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific >>>>> > > > >> project >>>>> or >>>>> > > > program, >>>>> > > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an >>>>> > > > organizations >>>>> > > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more >>>>> > complicated >>>>> > > > >> projects.) >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> Warm regards, >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> Sydney Poore >>>>> > > > >> User:FloNight >>>>> > > > >> Member FDC >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > > > > 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> >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- >>>>> > > >>>>> > > __________________________ >>>>> > > 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> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> __________________________ >>>>> 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] >>>>> <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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > > __________________________ > 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>
