hi Erlend,
I agree with you that chapter visits are a good idea and we should do more systematically in this area.
We are aware that the smaller chapters cannot possibly have the capacity to prepare the same kind of proposals as large chapters, and we mainly make comparisons between organizations of the similar size in terms of their projects, professionalization, etc.
We are also making an effort to start a series of supportive workshops for board members. In any case, I think you're making excellent points and I'm glad we are thinking pretty much in the same direction.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.nowrote:
Thanks for your answer dariusz!
Still, I think there are still 3 critical issues:
It requires that chapters are really able to express, in a foreign language, advanced phenomena and characteristics of their work. I have seen grant applications that prove the opposite,
The only thing I Ask for, is that you first grant someone 140'usd, and they apply for more, then at least you should visit that chapter. There Are not 20 such chapters, there Are close to 2. When you havn't even visited their chapter a single time ever, how can you then make up your mind about for example, their cooperative spirit, their ability to stage good events, the appropriatness of their office space for employee growth, their relations with the community, etc. Visits to chapters that apply or consider to apply for large grants, could make up for eventual language issues or other inabilites to express everything in written,
The third is that the FDC does not Ask for consistent information over time, which brings on a risk of comparing metrics that aren't actually comparable. We experienced it this year, we have been required to report more metrics but they are not actually specified. And we experience ex-post questions about metrics that weren't asked ex-ante for. So everry chapter has to do a lot of guesswork, and comparison of results between, for example, wmse, wmno, and wmfr, is virtually impossible. In the absence of comparable output data, one typically reverts to Ask for desktop input data, risk-minimizing characteristica, and prosessual characteristica. The quarterly reporta could help a lot, and they indicate required metrics, but don't specified them. I could og dreper into this If required.
Erlend
Den lørdag 10. mai 2014 skrev Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl følgende:
hi Erlend,
there is a systematic schedule of site visits by WMF, but obviously it cannot be done for each chapter every year. From my grantmaking experience with several major foundations, I have to say that doing assessments basing on desktop materials is typical. In fact, the professional standard, even for foundations trying to keep close, friendly and intimate contact with their organizations (like e.g. was within HESP Soros network, that I had a chance to observe from within), relies on rare site visits, (every couple of years). I don't think that it would be a reasonable allocation of resources to fly people to 20+ chapters every year - in fact, if we wanted to do that, we'd have to have a separate person hired specifically for that purpose.
The allocation of resources in our movement relies, to large extent, on trust in the submitted material. In other words, we take what you write about yourself for granted. Questions/comments serve further clarification purposes.
best,
dariusz ("pundit")
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no
wrote:
As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is
a
mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation.
Foundation
would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without
anyone
in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program
impact
in its local setting. As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical.
That
should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
Erlend Bjørtvedt Wmno
Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker risker.wp@gmail.com følgende:
Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to
avoid a
potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."
[1]
If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by
eliminating
the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia
Deutschland
(WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." The FDC can explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if
it
desires.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_...
On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek kasia.odrozek@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Hi Risker,
It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
out. I
have corrected it in the assessment.
Best, Kasia
2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made
the
request, then the sentence is incorrect. As it is currently
written,
it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the
request,
and
implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not
completed
any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikime...
On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl
wrote:
> hi, > > let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the
FDC,
and
> not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
request,
> and the FDC staff has assisted us > *Erlend Bjørtvedt*
Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us _______________________________________________ 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
--
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us