[Wikimedia-l] Funds Dissemination Committee first progress reports

[Samuel Klein]

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Merz <manuel.merz at wikimedia.de>wrote:
>> > I am a little disappointed at the focus by WMF staff on quantitative

I find it distracting, though currently accurate, that this is framed
as a "WMF staff" focus.  The report makes a point of taling about "FDC
staff" instead.

How can we set up FDC support, from across the movement, so that we
stop talking about "WMF staff" and start talking about "staff
supporting the FDC"?

In my view, this should be a mix of [staff] from across the movement.
This does not get away from the COI problem of having movement
entities reviewing how well they are doing, but it adds some of the
natural checks and balances of peer review.  (I put [staff] in
brackets because this could also include FDC support that are not
staff.  Indeed some aspects of COI suggest that any evaluation group
should include non-staff as well.)

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Manuel Merz <manuel.merz at wikimedia.de>wrote:
>> < [focusing on] quantitative metrics over everything else...
>> > may have the unfortunate
>> > side-effect of encouraging entities to go after easily measurable
>> > activities rather than the most effective and worthwhile activities.
>>
>> instead of setting the focus on "easily measurable" means, I would personally
>> prefer a focus on building up the movement's knowledge about sustainable
>> outcomes and on how to get there.

I agree with Manuel here: we should focus on how to build the
movement's knowledge about the most helpful, generative, and
sustainable outcomes.  And how to expand this knowledge: experiments
that will help us learn more about what is possible.  (This is
important exploration, even if the result of an experiment is not
immediately impactful)

Dariusz is also right to note that most ideas have some outcomes that
can be quantified, and some that cannot: and it is useful to identify
each group of outcome.

> I personally believe that there may be some confusion about the goals here.
> What is important is to seek quantitative metrics WHEN APPLICABLE...
<
> Typically, all good ideas have some outcomes that can be quantified, as
> well as some that can't (or shouldn't).

Regards,
Sam