On 28 April 2014 01:37, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 28/04/2014 05:22:
There is an actual cost to the WMDE to carry out this
assessment
With which you've replied to your own questions on why WMDE. Thanks generous WMDE for the gift.
Is it a gift, or is it payment in advance for a favourable response next time?
To be clear, I don't think that WMDE has any such expectations. On the other hand, this is why it is a conflict of interest for WMDE to be asked to do the review.
Gergo Tisza, 28/04/2014 04:04:
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.
+1 Risker, can you please check that your views of what makes a COI fit in < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guidelines_on_potential_ conflicts_of_interest> and propose your view on talk page if not?
See above.
Risker, 28/04/2014 04:40:
Their opinion is equivalent to yours, or mine, or any other person's on this mailing
list.
Fantastic. Then, if you're interested in providing opinions, please do so; you've not yet expressed a single opinion, hence I don't see why you worry about the value which is going to be attached to it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk: APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/ Proposal_form&action=edit§ion=new
Well, given that my assessment is essentially that it shows poor judgment on everyone's part for this to be where it is and going through the process that it's going through, I'm not sure there's much else for me to say. I focused my time today on reading other proposals that are appropriately within the FDC scope.
Risker/Anne