[Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Asaf,

a short comment on two things:


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Asaf Bartov <abartov at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and
> without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations),
> that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that
> the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but
> rather on ground of
>

it is difficult to speculate what decision would have been made if falling
out of compliance was the only issue, but you are definitely right that it
was not the only one. We spent quite a while discussing the project and the
chapter's ability to tackle larger grants at the moment, eligibility was
only a minor point in terms of time spent on discussing it.



> I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record --
> including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and
> more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside
> the merits of the program itself.
>

Yes, it is my personal view, probably shared by many other FDC members,
that possible impact is crucial (and definitely more important than just
some technical prowess in grant writing). I could see an innovative,
brilliant project with huge impact funded, in spite of minor slips in
paperwork, while I cannot imagine supporting a bureaucracy-only oriented
project, with poor impact, even if it was very professionally written.

This example, of course, is not related to the WMHK proposal.


> 2. I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
> available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
>
> 2.1. I am not convinced it is so.  I would like to note, quite simply, that
> merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_
> that information.  If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing
> information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out
> ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading
> the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_
> information.
>

Sorry, but for me this is just a rhetorical game here - down to business we
have a problem with a clear presentation of what kind of projects can be
funded through the FDC and GAC. It is irrelevant if information is lacking,
or just poorly or confusingly presented.

Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on
Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment
possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts
being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe
that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared.

best,

dariusz ("pundit")