Risker: just to confirm one way or another, when you say " which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway as it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC," are you referring to the FDC evaluating the efficacy of the FDC's grants in particular, or of all WMF grantmaking programs? I would agree that the former is definitely problematic, but I'm not convinced of the latter. I think they could probably review something like PEG with no problem, and probably do so quite well since the FDC is accumulating grantmaking expertise, and doesn't realistically compete with PEG for funding or anything like that.
Sorry for only commenting on one aspect, I'm still working out the others in my head.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Just also wanted to share a more moderate sound here: I think this is, even while not perfect, a practical implementation of what FDC has been asked to do. I haven't hear any alternatives that would really be /better/ and good to implement at this moment.
But maybe things could be different next year. I suggest that people who have good ideas for alternative organizations bring that up with that in mind for next year (in a few months or so, when the FDC is less swamped with work).
Lodewijk
2014-04-27 23:51 GMT+02:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because
the
request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done,
then
community assessment will be more useful than a quasi-official,
partial
assessment by a conflicted group that isn't "staff", has no
experience
using the analytical metrics, and doesn't have the wherewithal to do
a
complete the full assessment. The FDC does not have its own staff;
it
has
WMF staff appointed to assist them by creating staff assessments, in
accord
with the FDC structure approved by the Board. The FDC doesn't get to
pick
who does the assessments.
Risker, I understand your view. However, we believe that there is value
in
having a spectrum of views, and also in not putting WMF staff in a
position
where they assess a project which includes their own department. WMDE
staff
has a lot of experience in using different metrics, and understands our movement. The FDC can request any the movement stakeholders
specifically
for comments, and so it did.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder - one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itself is diminished - to usurp the role of staff analysis. I'm really sad that you can't see that, Dariusz. You're better off having the staff do the analysis of everything except grantmaking - which you shouldn't be reviewing anyway
as
it is a complete conflict of interest for the FDC.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe