Hoi,
Ever heard of "cherry picking" and of independent organisations ? If I were
to be dependent on this process I would hate it SOOO much.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 November 2014 at 23:30, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM, pajz
<pajzmail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One more question on a somewhat different subject, if you allow: I was
wondering about your suggestion (to WMDE in this case, or to other
chapters
as well?) to fund some projects (in this case
Wikidata) outside of the
FDC
process. Is this borne out of a general strategic
consideration of the
FDC
or is this something specific to the Wikidata
project? In WMDE's case it
sounds a bit, well, dangerous from the chapter's perspective (obviously
if
one moves the one big "success" out of
the ordinary FDC process, this
gives
the FDC completely free hand in setting next
year's allocation at no risk
of endangering the continued success of Wikidata), but generally speaking
it does sound like an interesting approach if you're considering this for
other projects as well. I'm just asking because I haven't heard of such a
funding scheme before, and it doesn't seem to fit in any of the existing
grants programs of the WMF, right?
I don't think we're advocating removal of Wikidata from the FDC scheme
per
se, but I myself would like for us (as a movement) to be able to target
best projects and guarantee their undisturbed financing. This can
definitely go through the FDC, in a multi-year funding scheme, when it is
precise enough (this round we've decided that we need more detail for this
to work). Ideally (and I'm talking about ideas, not a current structure),
we should be able to say that part (a) of the proposal is excellent and we
know for sure that should get funding for many years ahead (this could be
because of operational excellence, like WIkidata, but also even for small,
mundane and repeatable projects of small chapters, this would also allow
them to apply e.g. every two years if they basically do the same, proven
stuff), part (b) is ambiguous and we do not recommend funding it (although
the chapter can do as they please), part (c) is fine, but should be part of
a regular, year-to-year application, and part (d) in our view should be
scratched.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
best,
dj
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>