Yes, you're right. But I was talking specifically about this project in making decisions.

This percept by Pradeep at proposal talk page sums it up;

//I see no point in community engagement with this proposal to improve it without the knowledge of WMF's assessment. Trying to make improvements without any idea of the feedback will just lead to poor quality. Also, I do not see the need for this public grant application process when pretty much everything else seems to be behind closed doors. I believe you (& WMF) will have a better idea on whether to fund this proposal or not based on your internal appraisal of the performance of CIS-A2K than community members here who have seen only the plan and only parts of the implementation of the programme by CIS-A2K for which they were already funded. Prad2609 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC) //



On 19 April 2014 17:33, Vikram Vincent <> wrote:

On 19 April 2014 16:36, ansuman <> wrote:
> And it looks like no matter what volunteers ask, say; irrespective of their
> concerns, the decisions are final or have been made. To put it in another
> way, the paid employees outweigh volunteers. That's all. Thanks.

Such apprehensions exist in all communities where there are volunteers
and employees whether the Linux kernel, GCC, LibC, Wikipedia, etc..
The point however is to try to identify the strengths and weaknesses,
opportunities and threats - increase strengths, utilise opportunities,
eliminate weaknesses and take care of threats.
The best way to do these is by speaking plainly and by asking
questions and assuming good faith. Further, suggestions and alternate
models could be proposed. Even if the proposer is unable to implement
the idea somebody else will.

IMO I am fine with a paid employee doing more work than a volunteer
cause that is a strength and I am also fine with the employee setting
goals. Volunteers may either work on those goals or create their own.
If the paid employee is doing something illegal then we need to take
hard steps to rectify but I don't think that is the problem here.
Now, one weakness in the current model is that it is pedagogically not
sound.  It does not effectively engage the learner within the context
of education in India.  And due to this we lose out on the multitude
of students who join us in the initial stages.  This problem is common
to both volunteer driven and paid project driven activities.
Second weakness would be making the new comers self-sufficient and
enabling them to continue contributing even after the program is done.
 This problem is common to both volunteer driven and paid project
driven activities.
A challenge is coming up with effective and measurable outcomes and
these should be negotiable between the volunteers, employees and the
Foundation - maybe it is specified somewhere and I have not seen it.
I think there is enough space for all of us to work ensuring that the
free knowledge movement is strengthened.
Let us now get back to productive work.
Warm regards

Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit