Risker <risker.wp@...> writes:
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.
So apparently it is less of a conflict of interest for WMF departments to be
evaluated for funding by their colleagues in the other side of the same room
than by WMDE? This is really getting ridiculous. One can argue that the FDC
asking movement entities to analyze the funding of other movement entities is
a bad thing, but it has been the status quo ever since the FDC came into
being, so asking WMDE to evaluate WMF is perfectly in line with past
practice.
There might be legitimate reasons for preferring that the WMF keep all the
funding-recommendation-making power, instead of trying to distribute that
power within the movement, but if that's the case, you should think about
what those are instead of making red herring arguments about conflicts of
interest. (Also, if that's the case, what would be the point of having the
FDC? It was created exactly to "diminish the role of WMF", as you put it, and
make the decision-making about funding a more collaborative process.)