Dear Srikanth,
On 8 February 2013 18:56, Srikanth Ramakrishnan parakara.ghoda@gmail.comwrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Best regards, Vishnu