Hello Vishnu

You seem to be getting awfully defensive in the beginning.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Vishnu t <visdaviva@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Srikanth,

On 8 February 2013 18:56, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <parakara.ghoda@gmail.com> wrote:

Vishnu, thanks for responding.  Would you or someone from CIS help me
understand the rationale for selecting two individuals affiliated with
CSCS which is also affiliated with CIS?  

First about my affiliation: I am not sure what you mean by affiliation. Technically I am no more affiliated to CSCS for the past 5 years. But intellectually I have friends and associates, because of my stint there from 2002-07. I am unable to see if this is in any way problematic. If it is, I am quite perplexed because I have intellectual connections with faculty/departments in nearly 20 Universities to where I would like to Wiki-movement. Or are you suggesting that there is some deep conspiracy to select ONLY because I was affiliated to CSCS? I personally believe not. But it would be nice to hear the interview panel (especially those representing the Community and Chapter) come in on this. On the other hand I am quite happy to showcase my work at CSCS which gave me an exposure to the debates and challenges of Indian Languages in Higher Education and Research. Similarly my role at SRTT over the past 5 years equipped me other intellectual capacities. Not sure, if I was able to address your concern, but I would encourage you further clarify, so that we have a closure on this.

Allow me to help. First, here's what Affiliation means[1]. If it helps let's call it association.

You mention in the second line, that you haven't been affiliated to CSCS for the past 5 years, implying that you were before then. BTW what is CSCS? I don't know what you mean by "where I would like to Wiki-movement" it sounds oddly coprophilic. :P 

I believe Srikanth might indeed be suggesting the latter - a conspiracy! (with dramatic music even) 

 

Second about Tejaswini's affiliation: She is the founding director and will continue to be with CSCS. But what I think we should note is that she and other faculty because of their work brought whatever image CSCS has not that CSCS as an organization (which is impossible to think without the 5 people, esp. Dr. Niranjana) has given her credibility. It is her intellectual capacities that  I personally see adding value to our movement and plans than just her 'affiliation' to CSCS. By the way she is also affiliated to half a dozen other institutions. Even in her case I am not able to see why 'affiliation' becomes a problem. Again, I think someone from the interview panel should come in on this and clarify whether it is her affiliation to CSCS or intellectual and professional expertise and experience that weighed on their recommendation.

I don't know about any of these individuals, I barely know CIS to begin with. I however know Wikimedia and the world that you might be associating with. Both Ms. Tejaswini and you, are prior colleague and your organization had long term association with the one that just hired you. I think the line of questioning is fair, even though these associations are becoming more and more common these days in the same circle.

 

About CIS having affiliation to CSCS. Yes they did, I think, currently they don't and in future they may or whatever. So what? I am afraid I do not see the need to explain/see this as THE RATIONALE which drove either CIS or rather the interview panel in recommending the candidates. It looks to me, Srikanth, that you are trying to connect dots to see something, which at least I personally believe is not the case in the first place.

So basically, you just admitted that there is affiliation between the organization that hired you and the one you worked for? to go further, your colleague will be joining you as an advisor. I don't see why you denied it or questioned Srikanth's assumption in the first place - most of them hold true by your own admissions. 

About the need to explain, I think you did a good job above. In fact, that explanation is quite lengthy if you meant to imply, you don't see a need for it, it might not have worked.

 

 

I don't mean to question the
credentials of either you or Ms Tejaswini,

Thanks Srikanth, but I feel you have already done the contrary above and I will not be honest if I say I am not hurt, especially when you trivialize a senior academician like Dr. Niranjana's getting associated to the Wiki-movement in India. If I were part of the interview panel, at least I would take severe exception to your mail. 

hmm....double negative, so I'm guessing you meant you are hurt? You could have just stated that. I don't realize why you would take exception to a fair and apparently a viable assumption. I don't know you and I don't know Dr. Niranjana, try and understand "Wiki-movement in India" doesn't have any relation with you, in fact, it barely knows you. I barely know CIS, the organization that hired you. If there is an older link that might have conflict of interest in this hiring, I believe it should have been disclosed.

If you have any problem with srikanth asking this question, please assume they are coming from me now on. This might be how CIS works, but we care for COI and something like this should have been disclosed first.

 

however, was there a need

felt for the inclusion of an additional consultant whilst there are

already four other members in the CIS Delhi Office (previously WMF
India Programs)?  

I think, I see your point about A2K teams' workload and I am sure my colleagues will be reading this. However, if I were you, I would see Adviser as part of the solution than as problem itself. Mainly because the Adviser will not do the job of any of the A2K team member (who by the way is 3 after Shiju left us). If I understand the logic (from my experience in the not for profit and academic sectors) Advisers generally increase a team's work exponentially, because they throw ideas, opportunities, plans at the team to make them achieve the Goals and also check, criticize, mentor, etc. them. Not sure why you get an impression that she will do the teams' job. But probably the interview panel could throw more light on their 'rationale' for recommending her as an Adviser. At my level I can tell you that in the last 7 days of her coming in, she has given the team a lot to think and do.

You are probably missing an year and a half of context. The problem with your predecessor and the previous direction has been criticized, not just by some people on the list, but several Wikipedians abroad, even in an official report, for not having enough experienced Wikimedians on hand. Add to that your hiring, and your advisor, it is odd how 2 people who barely know about Wikipedia will be leading a team that has been criticized for not having enough experience and exposure in the first place. 

Either way, I would love to know what some of the "ideas, opportunities and plans" that have been "thrown" in the last few days, because I don't know if either of you have a Wiki account yet or what it is, or how much exposure you've had to this world before you lead it.

 

Do you feel that the current workload on the rest of
the team justifies the hiring of an additional consultant?

Same as above para. 

Furthermore, based on my discussions with other members oft he

community there appears to be some confusion on the amount of WMF

grant quoted in your email above, that is, INR 2.6 crores [~USD 488,000].  If I recall correctly, the grant

amount sanctioned by the WMF for CIS's A2k programme stands at INR 1.1
crores [~USD 206,000] with the possibility of further support from the FDC through a

separate grant request.  

Srikanth, here again we are getting misled by the way we are interpreting the terms. Sanctioning a Grant does not mean releasing/disbursing a grant. I have in my earlier capacity sanctioned many grants and there are instances where you do not end up releasing/disbursing the entire amount and typically you set various milestones for the release of installments. But the Grant letter says you are sanctioned a grant of X amount of which X-y will be sanctioned initially and after review, etc the balance amount of X-z will be released. Thus CIS has been sanctioned INR 2.6 crores of which INR 1.1 is released. Trust this clarifies.

Oh thank you for explaining the grants system. Again, perhaps people here might be just a bit more familiar with Wikimedia grant system and basing their questions on that rather than the one you might have followed. 

 

As far as my understanding goes, this support
is provisional 

 No it is not provisional. As far as I know no agency releases grant provisionally.

Actually, you might be wrong, by your own explanation it means it is provisional, as in conditional, and contingent upon further review, or crossing of a milestone. 

 

Though I was upset reading your mail initially, I should thank you for being forthright Srikanth, which gave an opportunity to be clear and open about what is happening with the A2K team. Anything further do get back. I can also be reached on my mobile +91-9845207308 if in case any one of you is comfortable talking one on one.

 
Yes, the Y2K team has a lot of work ahead. 

Regards
Theo 

[1]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affiliation

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l