On Jan 23, 2012, at 8:10 AM, sankarshan wrote: Not currently, Sankarshan. Once we start the work of designing a new pilot - taking into account the learnings from the Pune Pilot. This will have detailed schedule calendar. hisham

I see Tory responding to end her engagement on the issue, 2-4 days after she started responding on the talk page. I see a total of 4 edits from her this month, on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:India_Education_Program/Analysi… I left a question for Barry mostly, on the talk page. Do you think it was the right decision to have Tory do this report? If you recall, I mentioned why you didn't chose a community member or even an Indian to do the report about shortcomings of the education program *for India*? maybe in addition to Tory? This was what I tried to allude to earlier- consultants, employees, generally people with paid engagement for a topic, leave after the said term of their engagement. They can not provide the ongoing discussion and engagement a community member can. I brought this exact issue up when this was first announced. Regards Theo On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Anirudh Bhati <anirudhsbh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote: I found Tory's report neutral, informative, exhaustive and professional. Since this issue involves people from all spheres of Wikipedia movement, I feel it is wise that she was chosen to do this to given an objective view. We don't need an Indian to analyze this issue. This was what I tried to allude to earlier- consultants, employees, Individual community members leave too. But the community exists. Similarly, employees and consultants may leave. But, WMF will be there and I can see that Barry and others are trying their best to address this issue in their official capacity. Let's please discuss the issues put forward by the report instead of discussing how the report itself should have been done. The former is more important. Ravi

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Ravishankar <ravidreams(a)gmail.com> wrote: I found it to be an eyewitness account, not an analysis. I have raised this point elsewhere multiple times, this is the problem that is responsible for getting us here. Hiring individuals not from the community or the geography, to fix what is wrong with either or both. I used an analogy on the page, about hiring a lawyer from Australia, to fix a problem with farmers in Africa, he would not know about either. Individual community members leave too. But the community exists. You do know WMF came after Wikipedia? or the current incarnation with consultants and staff, with a focus and offices in developing countries even more recently? But those are other discussions for other places. Let me explain, community members are unpaid volunteers, who can join and leave as they wish, they are not bound by anything. Paid staff and contractors, are usually *paid* to undertake a project, if they leave mid-discussion, that is really not the same thing. I was. I found it lacking, and the person in-charge of the report, abandoning before the discussion started. Another volunteer editor, goes further to give a better view on how to fix this on the page, than the report. Regards Theo