[Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

Mon Apr 29 08:07:23 UTC 2013

Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of 
the FDC.

I would read three main important weaknesses:

a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and 
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to 
evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and 
gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best 
solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the 
submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be 
reduced a lot
b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these 
criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and 
it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC)
c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the 
context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the 
support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong 
because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have 
opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies

I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to 
solve conflicts.

It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer 
review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.

Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer 
that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European 
chapters.

Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" 
evaluating it with European parameters!

Regards

On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
>
> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the 
>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how 
>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual 
>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? 
>> Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that 
>> round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? 
> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all 
> proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the 
> deliberation these seven figures are presented  and they can differ 
> very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full 
> funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these 
> figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, 
> each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference 
> still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then 
> normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures.  
> In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC 
> members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a 
> span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed 
> and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, 
> and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of 
> reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we 
> manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the 
> way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I myself, have in no other of 
> the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same 
> constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with 
> consensus.
>
>
>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of 
>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring 
>> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where 
>> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We 
>> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and 
>> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers 
>> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer 
>> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both 
>> staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their 
>> growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are 
>> leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the 
>> Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
>
> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed 
> staff should not be seen to  replace volunteers but 
> support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF 
> as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers 
> involved.
>
> Anders
> Secretary of FDC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch