Given that this is an assessment that is being performed by paid staff, I think it's unreasonable to think that the staff would issue more than very mild criticism ("Your report is so great it makes everyone else look terrible!"), even if the report was so poor as to deserve criticism. I'm not saying that it *is*, but I don't think anyone that values their job would carpet their employer in a public forum, even if the employer invited them to do so. There should certainly be a note in this report to declare the massive COI involved in having WMF staff 'critically' assessing a WMF report. That said, I do find the assessment for everyone else useful in terms of seeing what the WMF staff will think, and I'm sure that chapters considering an FDC application will take that on board. I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative metrics over everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable activities rather than the most effective and worthwhile activities. Hopefully this will be taken into account on future assessments. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 12 June 2013 20:52, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Staff_… https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

+1 It is quick to target the easily measurable, but will it actually bring us forward? Activities and outputs are only a means to an end. So instead of setting the focus on "easily measurable" means, I would personally prefer a focus on building up the movement's knowledge about sustainable outcomes and on how to get there.

I find it distracting, though currently accurate, that this is framed as a "WMF staff" focus. The report makes a point of taling about "FDC staff" instead. How can we set up FDC support, from across the movement, so that we stop talking about "WMF staff" and start talking about "staff supporting the FDC"? In my view, this should be a mix of [staff] from across the movement. This does not get away from the COI problem of having movement entities reviewing how well they are doing, but it adds some of the natural checks and balances of peer review. (I put [staff] in brackets because this could also include FDC support that are not staff. Indeed some aspects of COI suggest that any evaluation group should include non-staff as well.) On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; wrote: personally I agree with Manuel here: we should focus on how to build the movement's knowledge about the most helpful, generative, and sustainable outcomes. And how to expand this knowledge: experiments that will help us learn more about what is possible. (This is important exploration, even if the result of an experiment is not immediately impactful) Dariusz is also right to note that most ideas have some outcomes that can be quantified, and some that cannot: and it is useful to identify each group of outcome. here. < Regards, Sam _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my own view, and not in the capacity of the FDC chair).

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Craig Franklin &lt;cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net&gt; wrote: 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 :-) 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. 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. 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. SJ