[Foundation-l] Re: NEH Grant résumés

[Michael Snow]

reflection at gmail.com wrote:

>I have taken up the /Staff section of of the grant application. 
>Having consulted with others the best way to do this seems to be for
>anyone willing to help with the grant to send a résumé to
>reflection at gmail.com.  I will compile them.  Please tailor your
>experiences/education towards relevancy to WikiMedia.
>
>We are especially interested in résumés from developers and
>bureaucrats, but all are necessarily welcome. All Board members are
>asked to submit.  In addition, we need as many people as possible to
>answer the following questions.  Please do not reply to the mailing
>list, but to reflection at gmail.com  This will prevent clutter and will
>maintain your privacy/anonymity.
>
>1) What is your full name and nickname? (Include a URL to your user page).
>
>2) Describe your duties at Wikipedia and qualifications for those
>duties.  If you have a title what is your title, and how long have you
>held it.
>
>3) Indicate the amount of time that you, the projects staff,
>anticipate committing to the project on a monthly basis (hours), and
>for how many months, years.
>
If the author of this email is not willing to even identify themselves 
to us, I don't see why any of us would want to send them a résumé. Also, 
I can't understand why résumés from bureaucrats would be requested in 
this context.

Note that the Staff section of the grant page was only just made into a 
subpage by an IP address. It has since been edited only by that same IP 
address and a user named Alterego (except for one minor edit by 
Eloquence). The username, plus Alterego's extremely short contribution 
history on Meta and en:, sets off all my sockpuppet alerts. In fact, my 
initial impulse is to attribute this to Bird, given that user's peculiar 
interest in "exposing" Wikipedia as a front for who knows what. No doubt 
Bird could concoct all kinds of conspiracy theories out of our 
collective résumés.

If the request is legitimate, and I'm the one spinning conspiracy 
theories, then two (actually, three) requests. One, could you please 
tell us who you really are? Two, would somebody who's a little more "in 
charge" of the grant process, like Danny or one of the board members, 
confirm that soliciting this information is actually necessary and 
appropriate at this time? Finally, when you reply to a digest version of 
this list, please do not include the entire digest in your reply. Thank you.

--Michael Snow