Risker: just to confirm one way or another, when you say " which you
shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for
the FDC," are you referring to the FDC evaluating the efficacy of the FDC's
grants in particular, or of all WMF grantmaking programs? I would agree
that the former is definitely problematic, but I'm not convinced of the
latter. I think they could probably review something like PEG with no
problem, and probably do so quite well since the FDC is accumulating
grantmaking expertise, and doesn't realistically compete with PEG for
funding or anything like that.
Sorry for only commenting on one aspect, I'm still working out the others
in my head.
Best,
Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>wrote;wrote:
Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here:
I think this is, even
while not perfect, a practical implementation of what FDC has been asked to
do. I haven't hear any alternatives that would really be /better/ and good
to implement at this moment.
But maybe things could be different next year. I suggest that people who
have good ideas for alternative organizations bring that up with that in
mind for next year (in a few months or so, when the FDC is less swamped
with work).
Lodewijk
2014-04-27 23:51 GMT+02:00 Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak
<darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because
the
>
request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done,
then
> > community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official,
partial
> > assessment by a conflicted group that
isn't "staff", has no
experience
> > using the analytical metrics, and
doesn't have the wherewithal to do
a
> > complete the full assessment. The FDC
does not have its own staff;
it
has
WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating
staff assessments, in
accord
with the FDC structure approved by the Board.
The FDC doesn't get to
pick
who does the assessments.
Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value
in
having a spectrum of views, and also in not
putting WMF staff in a
position
where they assess a project which includes their
own department. WMDE
staff
> has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our
> movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders
specifically
for
comments, and so it did.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished -
to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see
that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of
everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway
as
it is a complete conflict of interest for the
FDC.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>