hi Risker,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still taking the position that the FDC shouldn't be reviewing anything that does not include a direct funding request from an eligible entity.
I agree that definitely having an exact budget and suggesting a precise amount allocation is better, as it requires the FDC to be specific and clear. Also, since we are operating in a scarce resources reality (irrespective of whether they are self-imposed by the Board, or external), it makes more practical sense to be able to suggest limits to all entities undergoing the FDC process.
However, the practicalities of this year's solution are also clear.
However, if we're going to be absurd, then at least we should be consistently absurd, and have the same people doing the "staff assessment" of a proposal that the FDC cannot approve. Any entity can comment on anyone else's proposal under their own auspices. Granting special authority and a higher degree of importance to any of the entities to review the WMF proposal sets that reviewing entity at a higher level than any other commenter, including other movement entities. Why is WMDE's opinion more relevant than, say, WMIT? or WMIN? or WMPL? or CIS? Or French Wikipedia's? Or Swahili Wikisource's?
We have not addressed WMDE because of any gripes or potential power struggles, as you seem to have suggested in your previous post. Rather, we've decided that the second largest entity is naturally the most professionally equipped to do the task. Also, WMDE is the only entity in the movement that has a budget of comparable scale (over 1m), and in the FDC it is considered to be "large" (while, as a ballpark figure, we consider entities below 100k as "small").
Please, note also that we've requested what any other stakeholder can do as well and we really value and appreciate all assessments from the movement's stakeholders. It is only that we need to have at least one confirmed and delivered for sure. It is not about granting any special authority, but about assuring that this assessment is delivered. We will be extremely excited and welcome feedback from other entities on any of the proposals - but we realize that it is a lot of work, and in previous rounds the feedback from third parties has been limited.
I have full trust in the FDC staff and their abilities, and I am actually certain they would be able to prepare a professional assessment of the WMF. Still, for the sake of transparency, and to avoid both an actual and a perceived COI, I think it is reasonable to involve a separate entity, and the second largest one in the movement seems to us as a good choice.
In any case, I understand your concerns. In our collective decision the pros prevailed over cons, simply.
best,
dariusz "pundit"