Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my
own view, and not in the
capacity of the FDC chair).
To be extra clear, as Dariusz was: anything I say in this thread is my
own view, not a statement in the capacity of WMF Trustee.
Freeform discussion of what is possible is important, and I hope
people will share their thoughts even if they are not one of the
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Craig Franklin
Thanks SJ for these thoughts, it's gratifying
and encouraging that we have
a WMF trustee on the case :-)
The Board FDC liaisons are putting more thought into this than I am;
I'm just brainstorming quickly on the mailing list and encouraging
more of the same :-)
While getting chapter staff to likewise review
reports is a good idea,
there are two potential problems that I can see with it:
1. Chapter staff may be unwilling to criticise the reports of other
chapters that they're hoping to embark on joint projects with
Yes. WMF staff may have the same potential concerns (and joint
projects). Other options such as outside review (as you suggest) are
also available; but these brief reviews should be much less difficult
and controversial than the FDC decisions.
2. The various funding programs available
through the WMF (FDC, GAC) make
no secret of the fact that they want staff to be doing programme work,
*not* administrative or overhead work. It would be difficult for most
chapters to spare the resources to do this properly.
Perhaps. If we're organizing an increasing number of things into
programs with plans, timelines, and metrics: then every community
needs to develop some facility for refactoring, reviewing, measuring,
and tracking projects. That sort of self-reflection is essential to
daily work, and should happen regularly at the lowest possible level;
so I'm not comfortable framing it as costly overhead. That's like
saying that organizing an RfC is costly overhead.
Moreover some of the program work of local groups involves overseeing
microgrants. Which requires specific facility in this sort of review.
Perhaps the movement could look at getting an
external firm in to do the
assessment? It would probably be costly, but if the firm is properly
chosen it should at least minimise any COI concerns. Of course, their
reporting can and should be supported by vigourous assessment by the
This is certainly an option if it proves essential and worth the
expense. I'd like to see how simply and inexpensively we can
accomplish the same thing, however. I'd rather see this become less
of a big deal - a rolling process that many people can contribute to,
in steps - than more of one.
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266