[Wikimedia-l] "Clerk" role description?

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 May 2012 18:13, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>> > The arbcom "clerking" role evolved from the tedious paperwork of
>> > arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place
>> > until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to
>> > instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
>> >
>>
>> Thomas Dalton wote:
>> >
>> > I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF
>> > board's resolution  instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the
>> > FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a
>> > great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be
>> > doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea
>> > of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.
>>
>> The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year
>> which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting
>> and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed
>> infrastructure grants.
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012
>>
>> That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt
>> paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent.
>>  It would be good to preempt that this year.
>>
>>
> I don't see how having a clerking staff would make this process any less
> challenging; the chapters and partner groups would *still* have to come up
> with the budget, justify it, explain what it was going to be used for, and
> all the clerking in the world isn't going to change that.
>
> Risker

I don't have a strong opinion about clerks vs paid administrative
help, or both. But I think what SJ is getting at is, like any large
budgeting or grantmaking process, there will be a fair amount of
paperwork that will have to be done by someone. Things like:

* Request tracking: when were requests received, were they
acknowledged, what stage of the review process are they in?
* What format do budget requests of various types go in? Are requests
in that format? Are templates made, and provided?
* Is guidance for making proposals easily accessible and clear? Is it
up to date?
* Are questions to the FDC answered? The OTRS queue or other address
monitored? Who do people write if they have general or specific
questions?
* Is there missing information in the proposals? Anything easily
corrected that needs to be added? Is something unclear? Do
translations need to be made? Are monetary amounts converted to a
standard? Are different accounting practices explained and reconciled?
* Are other aspects of global budgeting (via the WMF, the chapters,
etc) and other necessary information for the FDC made available?
* Are questions from the FDC (to the Board, WMF, etc.) tracked? Did
answers make it back to the FDC?
* Are reminders sent about the timeline? Are all interested parties
communicated with about annual deadlines?
* When is the FDC meeting? Are members supported for meetings
(scheduling, travel, etc?) Are minutes taken and posted in a timely
manner?
* Are decisions communicated to the community? Translated? Is there an
FAQ, and who writes the answers?
* When members are elected/appointed/whatever, is the
election/appointment process clear, fair and done well?

etc. etc. etc. And that's just off the top of my head.

None of  this has to do with the substance of "is xyz program/annual
budget clear, thoughtful and impactful, and something someone in
Wikimedia should be doing" -- which hopefully is the kind of analysis
the FDC will be providing -- but it is a substantial amount of work!

-- phoebe