Hi Sue,
Thank you for your report at https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment.
Could you please clarify if "In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have article writing as a core focus, regardless of who is initiating or managing the process" should be read by the FDC that Chapters and Thorgs should not plan to use their funds for paid editing projects, and that we will not support partnerships with other organizations where this is an expected outcome?
As well as the list of people that you thanked, I would like to add my thanks for Tomasz who took the time to research his original blog post, and to Russavia for his analysis, both invested significant unpaid volunteer time to do this research on behalf of the community. Without their work I would not have thought to ask my basic questions about the project on this list, nor would we have so much detailed evidence to support your report.
I find it disappointing that when difficult governance questions like this are raised in public, that some leading members of our community default to treating the concerned whistle-blower as a troll, or press for the question and discussion to stay secret from the main body of our community by moving it to closed channels when there are no privacy or personal issues to justify that secrecy or confidentiality. This behaviour drives whistle-blowers underground or leaves them tediously sniping on certain soap-box forums and wiki-discussion pages using anonymous accounts.
I may help for us to consider how valuable good faith whistle-blowing can be, and how we could avoid deriding or dismissing the questioner as troll or a 'drama queen' and damaging their standing within our community in the process.
Thanks, Fae (troll, drama queen, speaking from the grave, etc.)