And the SPI (Sockpuppet Investigations) clerks are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks… . On 1 May 2012 20:03, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Thehelpfulone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone English Wikipedia Administrator

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru> wrote: The advisory group would not be clerks. The question is whether it is helpful to also have clerks, to handle record-keeping and routine administration to support the work of the FDC + advisors. SJ

On 1 May 2012 16:47, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)frontier.com> wrote: Really? As best I can tell (given the paucity of information available at this point), it won't be any more complex than the Grants Advisory Group; that certainly doesn't need clerking. I am actually quite concerned that there is consideration to create a bureaucracy to support a committee whose responsibilities haven't even been delineated; doing so would set the course for the committee before the FDC Advisory Group even gets its teeth into the question. More particularly, since Sue has asked about "job descriptions", the two "clerk" areas on English Wikipedia are sockpuppet investigations and arbitration committee pages. The former is quite active in the process itself, including blocking of suspected sockpuppets; in many cases, they act as "checkusers without the tool". Arbcom clerk responsibilities are more oriented to keeping cases together, properly formatted, and tracking voting. English Wikipedia has repeatedly refused to permit the development of any other recognized "clerking" roles within the project, usually with good reason. Risker/Anne

On 1 May 2012 21:47, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)frontier.com> wrote: I think it is fairly obvious that the FDC will need some kind of administrative support. The only question is whether that should come from volunteer clerks or WMF staff. There are pros and cons to both, so it's a conversation worth having.

On 1 May 2012 22:11, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: All Sue has done so far is ask for some information in order to inform a discussion. We're a long way from actually appointing any clerks.

On 1 May 2012 17:13, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes, which is why I provided the information about the roles of the English Wikipedia clerks. Having said that, the FDC Advisory Committee is having its first meeting today, according to the Meta page (I note that the names of the Board members and outside members aren't included on the list yet). I'm just making it clear from my perspective that I find it concerning that there are discussions about the infrastructure to support the FDC when we are at the very beginning of the discussion about what the FDC should actually be doing, and that there are some considerably more disparate views about "what they will do" than meets the eye. Risker/Anne

David Gerard wrote: Thomas Dalton wote: The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed infrastructure grants. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012 That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent. It would be good to preempt that this year. SJ

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't have a strong opinion about clerks vs paid administrative help, or both. But I think what SJ is getting at is, like any large budgeting or grantmaking process, there will be a fair amount of paperwork that will have to be done by someone. Things like: * Request tracking: when were requests received, were they acknowledged, what stage of the review process are they in? * What format do budget requests of various types go in? Are requests in that format? Are templates made, and provided? * Is guidance for making proposals easily accessible and clear? Is it up to date? * Are questions to the FDC answered? The OTRS queue or other address monitored? Who do people write if they have general or specific questions? * Is there missing information in the proposals? Anything easily corrected that needs to be added? Is something unclear? Do translations need to be made? Are monetary amounts converted to a standard? Are different accounting practices explained and reconciled? * Are other aspects of global budgeting (via the WMF, the chapters, etc) and other necessary information for the FDC made available? * Are questions from the FDC (to the Board, WMF, etc.) tracked? Did answers make it back to the FDC? * Are reminders sent about the timeline? Are all interested parties communicated with about annual deadlines? * When is the FDC meeting? Are members supported for meetings (scheduling, travel, etc?) Are minutes taken and posted in a timely manner? * Are decisions communicated to the community? Translated? Is there an FAQ, and who writes the answers? * When members are elected/appointed/whatever, is the election/appointment process clear, fair and done well? etc. etc. etc. And that's just off the top of my head. None of this has to do with the substance of "is xyz program/annual budget clear, thoughtful and impactful, and something someone in Wikimedia should be doing" -- which hopefully is the kind of analysis the FDC will be providing -- but it is a substantial amount of work! -- phoebe