As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a
mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the
assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real
knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation. Foundation
would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not
happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone
in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program impact
in its local setting.
As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical. That
should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
Erlend Bjørtvedt
Wmno
Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> følgende:
Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads
"In order to avoid a
potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia
Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]
If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was
assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
(WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." The FDC can
explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it
desires.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014…
On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek <kasia.odrozek(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi Risker,
It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
out. I
have corrected it in the assessment.
Best,
Kasia
2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>:
Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not
WMF/FDC staff) made the
request, then the sentence is incorrect. As it is currently written,
it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
and
implies that the FDC itself had no role in this
decision.
The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request.
[1]
The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikim…
On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> hi,
>
> let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
and
> not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to
WMDE regarding this
request,
> and the FDC staff has assisted us since
then. The sentence is thus
true,
> although may sound misleading.
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Winifred. These appear to be very good, and I largely
agree
> with
> > the assessment.
> >
> > I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
was
> > partially reviewed by WMDE. In the
first sentence of the
introduction
to
> their report they say "In order to
avoid a potential bias assessing
their
> > own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
to
do
> > the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
consistent
> > with
> > > what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on
Wikimedia-L.
Did
> the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the
assessment?
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1]
>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikim…
> > > > .
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@
--
*Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge
Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway
Mob: +47 - 9225 9227