Pete, I am looking more at process than outcomes.
Asaf, perhaps I was unclear in my statement, so I will try again.
1. I do not expect WMF and grantmaking committees to agree all of the time.
What I hope for is that WMF will not override a committee vote if a
committee
develops consensus against a proposal. Given GAC's low participation numbers
it seems unlikely that they are forming consensus, as you say, but in the
examples I gave WMF has approved grants that the majority (of one!) voted
against. I think this is a risky practice that establishing grants
committees is
partly designed to mitigate. I am glad to hear that WMF has never done an
override of a consensus vote of GAC and I hope it stays that way.
2. I would say that "the system is not working" if there is too low of a
level
of participation by Committee members to form consensus on proposals, and
one thing there does seem to be consensus about is that the level of
participation
is too low.
3. Thank you for the links.
Pine
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As someone who has engaged with several different
grants, in different
roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested
volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just
said.
Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant
program were run in such a way that there *wasn't* any visible
disagreement, that would be a problem. I think those working on this
program have, over the years, done an admirable job of working through the
inevitable disagreements.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W
<wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the update, Alex.
>
> I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking
> committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if
the
> override is to approve a proposal. I
understand that WMF might find a
> reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds
> something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as
that
the
grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking
committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it
anyway,
> I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests
that
the WMF
isn't serious about its own grantmaking process.
As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF
and
applicants) and implicit in that is that its
opinions -- while always
taken
carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will
be in opposition to the
final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and
we
are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to
imply by "previously had
agreed to work with") in doing so. We are doing our job.
Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against
which the committee has "develop[ed] consensus". Take another look at
the
examples you brought yourself -- one
"oppose" vote in a committee of 28
does not consensus make.
I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current
system is not working, as everyone seems to
agree.
I disagree. In fact no one agrees "the system is not working", as far
as I
can tell, except you. On the contrary "the
system", i.e. the Project and
Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a
less-than-desired
level of participation in its advisory committee.
While that is
certainly
something we are endeavoring to improve
(recognizing, of course, it is
ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and
means),
it should not be taken to mean "the system
is not working".
I am curious, what alternatives are you
exploring?
You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3].
Cheers,
Asaf
[1]
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Re…
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
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@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>