On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more.
Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.
That is interesting. And I think it is related to some questions I made during the FDC meeting during the Wikimedia Conference. [1]
* (Tom - WMF) How will FDC find a balance between the money that will go to organizations from the Global South (GS) and Global North (GN) in the mid to the long term? It is well known the bad distribution of formal groups in these two places, having a bigger concentration in the GN. [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]
*(Tom - WMF) Measure of success: feedback to be parked. How to distinguish the measure of success when it comes to different backgrounds? Sometimes a small language Wikipedia can have a completly different measure than the English version, for instance. How to handle that? [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]
And the second question for me is really important for me based on my experience working for almost 1,5 year for the catalyst program in Brazil.
These questions were going to be answered on Sunday and after would be added on meta.
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
Tom
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."