Hi Risker,
On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
However, having accepted the validity of the
"proposal", the FDC does not
have the authority to delegate its role.
I think you're misunderstanding what has been delegated here. The FDC is asking WMDE
to do the 'staff assessment' of the proposals, e.g. here's the one for WMDE
from last round:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round1/Wikim…
This is normally done by the WMF/FDC staff, not by the FDC itself. It's a separate
document from the recommendations that the FDC makes each round. None of the role of the
FDC itself has been delegated here.
particularly when there are obvious conflicts of
interest involved. The lack of recognition of that conflict of interest on
the part of the FDC is a very serious matter, and raises doubts about the
impartiality of the FDC as a whole.
In my personal opinion, WMDE has no more a COI here than the WMF/FDC staff has when they
do the staff assessments of the other FDC applications. Remember that WMDE/WMF aren't
in direct competition for money from the same pot here.
It's all well and good for your
members to step out of the room while discussing certain applications, but
with 4 of 9 FDC members being directly affiliated with supplicant groups,
your standards for avoidance of conflict of interest need to be
significantly stronger. There was good reason for concern that the FDC is
becoming a self-dealing group without this delegation of responsibility.
I think you're going off on a tangent here, and I don't think there's a big
problem with how things are working at the moment with COI handling on the FDC, but
I'd be interested to know how you'd strengthen this?
Thanks,
Mike