[Wikimedia-l] Funds Dissemination Committee first progress reports

[Samuel Klein]

> Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit" (expressing my own view, and not in the
> capacity of the FDC chair).

To be extra clear, as Dariusz was: anything I say in this thread is my
own view, not a statement in the capacity of WMF Trustee.

Freeform discussion of what is possible is important, and I hope
people will share their thoughts even if they are not one of the
parties involved.

SJ

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Craig Franklin
> <cfranklin at halonetwork.net> wrote:
>> Thanks SJ for these thoughts, it's gratifying and encouraging that we have
>> a WMF trustee on the case :-)
>
> The Board FDC liaisons are putting more thought into this than I am;
> I'm just brainstorming quickly on the mailing list and encouraging
> more of the same :-)
>
>> While getting chapter staff to likewise review reports is a good idea,
>> there are two potential problems that I can see with it:
>>
>> 1.  Chapter staff may be unwilling to criticise the reports of other
>> chapters that they're hoping to embark on joint projects with
>
> Yes.  WMF staff may have the same potential concerns (and joint
> projects).  Other options such as outside review (as you suggest) are
> also available; but these brief reviews should be much less difficult
> and controversial than the FDC decisions.
>
>> 2.  The various funding programs available through the WMF (FDC, GAC) make
>> no secret of the fact that they want staff to be doing programme work,
>> *not* administrative or overhead work.  It would be difficult for most
>> chapters to spare the resources to do this properly.
>
> Perhaps.  If we're organizing an increasing number of things into
> programs with plans, timelines, and metrics: then every community
> needs to develop some facility for refactoring, reviewing, measuring,
> and tracking projects.  That sort of self-reflection is essential to
> daily work, and should happen regularly at the lowest possible level;
> so I'm not comfortable framing it as costly overhead.  That's like
> saying that organizing an RfC is costly overhead.
>
> Moreover some of the program work of local groups involves overseeing
> microgrants.  Which requires specific facility in this sort of review.
>
>> Perhaps the movement could look at getting an external firm in to do the
>> assessment?  It would probably be costly, but if the firm is properly
>> chosen it should at least minimise any COI concerns.  Of course, their
>> reporting can and should be supported by vigourous assessment by the
>> community.
>
> This is certainly an option if it proves essential and worth the
> expense.  I'd like to see how simply and inexpensively we can
> accomplish the same thing, however.  I'd rather see this become less
> of a big deal - a rolling process that many people can contribute to,
> in steps - than more of one.
>
> SJ



-- 
Samuel Klein          @metasj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266