[Wikimedia-l] Funds Dissemination Committee first progress reports

[Craig Franklin]

Given that this is an assessment that is being performed by paid staff, I
think it's unreasonable to think that the staff would issue more than very
mild criticism ("Your report is so great it makes everyone else look
terrible!"), even if the report was so poor as to deserve criticism.  I'm
not saying that it *is*, but I don't think anyone that values their job
would carpet their employer in a public forum, even if the employer invited
them to do so.  There should certainly be a note in this report to declare
the massive COI involved in having WMF staff 'critically' assessing a WMF
report.

That said, I do find the assessment for everyone else useful in terms of
seeing what the WMF staff will think, and I'm sure that chapters
considering an FDC application will take that on board.  I am a little
disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative metrics over
everything else, which I think may have the unfortunate side-effect of
encouraging entities to go after easily measurable activities rather than
the most effective and worthwhile activities.  Hopefully this will be taken
into account on future assessments.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin



On 12 June 2013 20:52, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Katy Love, 11/06/2013 22:52:
>
>> [2]
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/**
>> 2012-2013_round1/Staff_**summary/Progress_report_form/**Q1<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round1/Staff_summary/Progress_report_form/Q1>
>>
>
> Funny: «WMF notes [stats]», «WMFR claims [stats]».
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.**org <Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>