[Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Volunteers Wanted: Funds Dissemination Process Advisory Group

[Barry Newstead]

Hi -

I have created a list of issues to resolve in the FDC process on meta.[1]
There are probably additional issues to resolve and it would be great if
people would edit the list and start suggesting solutions. IMHO the list of
issues is substantial and decisions on the approach to the design will have
major implications for entities in the movement. Further, there are time
constraints on the FDC process to start functioning quite quickly as
entities will want to secure their funding for future fiscal years and I'd
personally prefer not to rely on the ad hoc approach that we had last year
(since we/I didn't have the capacity to figure out a more structured
approach before we were in the middle of the review process).

If we simply select an FDC (btw - how would this happen?) and ask them to
figure out the issues for themselves, this would be a recipe for serious
challenges that could doom the FDC from the start. A relatively brief, but
structured process that is open, has an effective advisory group of trusted
people, and is supported by consultants who can give us structure and help
us with the heavy-lifting on process design seems like a solid way to get
us to a good outcome and help the FDC get off to an effective start.

On the narrow issue of travel to SF for occasional meetings...this is
really a practical consideration. There needs to be a time when the
Advisory Group can really dig in and help us push to decisions. It would be
ineffective to try to do such a meeting by phone or IRC.  Per Christophe's
point, it might make sense to have this over two days rather than one.

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_process_issues_list

Best,
Barry



On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or
> > controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our
> > standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns
> > out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate
> > approach then.
>
> Naturally the process should be public and inclusive.
> I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis.
> Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings,
> suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from
> people who are not active wiki users.
>
> A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith
> participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a
> good idea for any time-sensitive project.  We don't want to appoint
> FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a
> distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as
> soon as possible.
>
> As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here,
> even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Barry Newstead
Chief Global Development Officer
Wikimedia Foundation

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate