Anders, what are the comparable numbers out of Sweden? Not generated by bots. What is the link for this?
Rupert On Nov 23, 2014 2:59 PM, "Anders Wennersten" mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
I beleive you can find part of what you ask for in the staff assessment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/ 2014-2015_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Staff_proposal_assessment
The decline in editors are among the steepest of any community *Editors* *Country* *Wikipedia* *1 October 2012* *1 October 2013* *1 October 2014* All editors Deutschland German 14,740 13,484 12,720 Active (5+/mo) 5,290 4,661 4,301
WMDE is continuing its expensive community support work that has not demonstrated past impact and in its current design does not seem likely to generate significant future impact commensurate with costs. WMDE's budget is disproportionally focused on its community support program, which does not have commensurate impact.
Anders
pajz skrev den 2014-11-23 14:43:
Hi Dariusz,
On 23 November 2014 at 14:04, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
the current framework ONLY allows to make across the board cuts. Sadly.
We would very much rather have a possibility to recommend some projects to be funded or not, but these are unrestricted funds.
While the latter may be true, I do not see why that would be a
requirement to what I suggested. It is nonetheless possible to lay down transparently why an entity's proposed budget was considered too big and which parts of it you do not find worth funding. As far as I can see, this is not by any means affected by the Committee's inability to impose binding restrictions on the use of allocated funds.
My point is this: What I think the Committee currently provides is a) a list of things that the FDC members like, b) a list of things that the FDC members don't like, and c) some recommended amount of money. What's missing is a link between a)/b) and c). If I were to vandalize the page tonight and reduce WMDE's the recommended amount by EUR 300,000, would anybody notice a discrepancy? I don't think so. I'm not saying, by the way, that the FDC should only be able to make cuts to specific items in the budget. This is sometimes not possible, and that's fine. But I do think that this should be made explicit ("We reduced the total amount by 10% due to concerns about governance.") At the same time, there are arguments that only seem to jusitfy item-specific cuts. When you say that a certain programme doesn't generate sufficient results or is for other reasons not something you feel comfortable funding, then I could imagine something like "We do not think that programme xy should be funded, so we reduced the recommended amount by that amount."
Finally, I would argue that this is also an important issue of accountability. If you think it through, the way you present these cuts make it effectively impossible to appeal a decision by the FDC. If you give six reasons why a chapter should get EUR 360,000 less than requested, without putting numbers to it or even making a priorization, how is the chapter supposed to appeal that decision? If they say "Well, your third argument isn't really correct," you can always say "But look, there a five others!".
Best wishes, Patrik _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe