Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to
evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and
gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best
solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the
submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be
reduced a lot
b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these
criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and
it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the
context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the
support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong
because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have
opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies
I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to
solve conflicts.
It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer
review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.
Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer
that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European
chapters.
Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review"
evaluating it with European parameters!
Regards
On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1]
and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that
round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all
seven FDC members before the meeting asses all
proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the
deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ
very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full
funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these
figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason,
each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference
still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then
normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures.
In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC
members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a
span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed
and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure,
and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of
reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we
manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the
way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of
the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same
constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with
consensus.
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the
following snippet of
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring
that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where
staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We
encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and
volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers
leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer
activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both
staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their
growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are
leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the
Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed
staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but
support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF
as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers
involved.
Anders
Secretary of FDC
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371