On 27 Apr 2014, at 20:19, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 April 2014 15:01, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
What is currently stopping a community assessment from being carried out? (If indeed the community has the actual desire to do it -- I assume the data is as public as it gets at the WMF's current level of transparency.)
Best regards, Bence
In the past, the WMF budget and programmatic proposals were separate from all others, and were widely advertised as the WMF proposal. Now they are buried in "FDC proposal" with no specific metion that there is a WMF proposal there. I've seen no banners. I got a personal talk page message because I'd been identified as a "useful" person to comment.
In other words, there is much less transparency or effort to reach out to the broader community for the WMF proposal, which is radically different from all other proposals.
It might just have been me, but I seem to recall big banners on Wikipedia advertising the fact that the WMF's proposal was up for review (among the others). In any case, as someone who has followed the WMF's budgets over the year, I rarely do recall any formal community consultation (apart from their non-core proposal last year to the FDC), so this is a welcome step in the right direction. (I find it difficult to get on board with the implied argument that the fact that other organisations are as transparent or more at the same time as the WMF is a bad thing).
I was wondering the same thing. In particular, I think this is the first year that the WMF's plans are being shared with the community before they've been approved by the WMF board. Perhaps you missed the banners? The talk page message was intended as extra encouragement to comment, not as the main means of communication.
Thanks, Mike