As someone who has engaged with several different grants, in different roles, through this program (as a grantee, as an advisor, as an interested volunteer), I would like to wholeheartedly endorse everything Asaf just said.
Disagreement is a given when money and broad goals involved; if the grant program were run in such a way that there *wasn't* any visible disagreement, that would be a problem. I think those working on this program have, over the years, done an admirable job of working through the inevitable disagreements.
Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the update, Alex.
I find it problematic that WMF would override a community grantmaking committee that WMF previously had agreed to work with, especially if the override is to approve a proposal. I understand that WMF might find a reason to decline a grant after committee approval because WMF finds something in its due diligence process that is unacceptable such as that the grantee has overdue reports on prior grants, but if a grantmaking committee develops consensus against a proposal and WMF approves it
anyway,
I think that is a problem, it shows a lack of trust, and it suggests that the WMF isn't serious about its own grantmaking process.
As Alex explained above, the committee's role is advisory (to both WMF and applicants) and implicit in that is that its opinions -- while always taken carefully into account -- can and (rarely) will be in opposition to the final decision. That's been the committee's design from the start, and we are not breaking any agreement (as you seem to imply by "previously had agreed to work with") in doing so. We are doing our job.
Also contrary to what you say, we are yet to approve a proposal against which the committee has "develop[ed] consensus". Take another look at the examples you brought yourself -- one "oppose" vote in a committee of 28 does not consensus make.
I appreciate the flexibility of GAC's process but apparently the current
system is not working, as everyone seems to agree.
I disagree. In fact no one agrees "the system is not working", as far as I can tell, except you. On the contrary "the system", i.e. the Project and Event Grants program, is working fairly well, _despite_ a less-than-desired level of participation in its advisory committee. While that is certainly something we are endeavoring to improve (recognizing, of course, it is ultimately up to the committee members, but we can improve ways and means), it should not be taken to mean "the system is not working".
I am curious, what alternatives are you exploring?
You are welcome to read all about it[1][2][3].
Cheers,
Asaf[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Rev... [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Revamp_Discussion -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe