As seen from distance in Paris, it seems like the assessment prosess is a mix of well-reasoned, prepared, and coincidential. In our case, the assessment is based on clever desk-top metrics, but not on any real knowledge of the local programs or their actual implementation. Foundation would have to visit chapters before evaluating them, but that has not happened. It is unfortunate that smaller chapters be assed without anyone in the WMF ever having visited the chapter and assessed the program impact in its local setting. As it stands, fdc assessment of wmno is 100% desktop and theoretical. That should really change If grantmaking is to be professionalized.
Erlend Bjørtvedt Wmno
Den fredag 9. mai 2014 skrev Risker risker.wp@gmail.com følgende:
Thank you for your correction, Kasia - it now reads "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing their own proposal, FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." [1]
If I may suggest, since the FDC didn't submit the proposal that was assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." The FDC can explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the assessment, if it desires.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_...
On 9 May 2014 11:07, Kasia Odrozek kasia.odrozek@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi Risker,
It was indeed an unintentional mistake and thank you for pointing it
out. I
have corrected it in the assessment.
Best, Kasia
2014-05-09 17:00 GMT+02:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:
Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the request, then the sentence is incorrect. As it is currently written, it states that WMF/ FDC staff contacted WMDE directly made the request,
and
implies that the FDC itself had no role in this decision.
The WMF/FDC staff have made it very clear that they have not completed
any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikime...
On 9 May 2014 10:51, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi,
let me clarify - asking WMDE was an independent decision of the FDC,
and
not of the FDC staff. The FDC reached out to WMDE regarding this
request,
and the FDC staff has assisted us since then. The sentence is thus
true,
although may sound misleading.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Winifred. These appear to be very good, and I largely
agree
with
the assessment.
I know that the WMF FDC staff did not review the WMF submission; it
was
partially reviewed by WMDE. In the first sentence of the
introduction
to
their report they say "In order to avoid a potential bias assessing
their
own proposal, WMF/FDC staff have asked Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE)
to
do
the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal."[1] This is not
consistent
with
what the FDC chair and members told us in the thread on
Wikimedia-L.
Did
the WMF/FDC staff request that WMDE do the assessment?
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikime...
. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@