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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Just a couple personal points:

Asaf Bartov, 30/04/2013 05:04:
> [...]
> 1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter,
> wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret
> anti-WMHK agenda [...]

I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter.

> [...]
> 4. Grants for growth
>
> 4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is
> not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those
> which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're
> at."  -- this is incorrect:

As you mention me directly: that's just my opinion, I know it's not the 
official interpretation (see also Anthere's message).

>
> 4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different
> grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the
> Wikimedia Mission.  That is the ultimate goal.  Helping _impactful_
> Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow
> _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:

This is the same I said, just in a different way: you say you require 
the groups to _first_ be "impactful" enough; I say «first you develop 
your own strengths and then you go to the negotiations [with WMF] if you 
need to and have something to gain».
	There's nothing special with this, the WMF has the money and decides 
how to spend it. Grants are just a different way for the WMF to buy 
services they already want but can't execute directly, see the indian 
education program example. The WMF opens a call for bids on some 
services, entities present offers with prices detailing all the costs, 
the FDC ensures the cost of each pencil was calculated correctly, then 
the staff decides what to buy. If there are no good offers, the WMF may 
eventually just hire someone directly to act locally.
	The problem is that the WMF constantly (by design) abusing words and 
rhetoric makes us waste a lot of time because of the misunderstandings 
it produces. I agree that more information is probably not needed, but a 
glossary from "official WMF speak" to "concrete clear language" may help.

>
> 4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some
> chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically
> seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR
> and WMRS) via its grants.  [...]

This doesn't seem to contradict what Tomasz said.

Nemo