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(a)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(a)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(a)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
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014…
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek <kasia.odrozek(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>:
> >
> > > 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/Wikim…
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)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(a)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.org<https://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