Dariusz, as you said: it is not on your public FDC profile.
How should I know all of this about you if it is completely missing from there?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Memb...
Vince
2014-11-25 15:13 GMT, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
we're clearly looking at different pages. My description indicates 8 years of sitting on a funds dissemination committee of Nida Foundation. It is true that I have not listed my experience on Kopernik Science Center Board, or Interkl@sa, even though I did at the point of candidacy to the FDC.
If exactly such experience (sitting on the committee distributing funds) does not count, I am not certain what can satisfy your requirements.
Additionally, I believe that your argument is flawed. True, we do need people with such experience on the FDC, but just as equally we need people with experience from chapter boards, for instance.
best,
dariusz "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Balázs Viczián balazs.viczian@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, I do not feel it is ungrounded at all.
If you read carefully, all FDC members (including you) are talking about writing grants (if any), none has written in their profile that they had any specific experience in _reviewing_ them.
To keep it simple, I bet you as a professor know the difference between writing tests and reviewing tests written by others :)
Vince
2014-11-25 13:25 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
yes, that I understood, I just believe that your statement that that members of the FDC initially had zero or minimal experience needed for bodies of this sort is basically ungrounded :)
best,
dj
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Balázs Viczián <balazs.viczian@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
"initial" was meant to refer to the times when the FDC (and its preceding processes) were set up. Sorry if I was misunderstandable.
Vince
2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+00:00 Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl:
I mean 50 thousand, which positions the organization I ran at the level of really small chapters in our movement.
I do not understand your point about stakeholders at all. Are you assuming that the FDC is acting as a WMF proxy? We are an independent, community-ran body advising to the Board (which, again IS NOT the Foundation).
Additionally, we as the FDC, do not require external funding, so your further argument is even more confusing. We're only advising to get it whenever possible, but absolutely accept (a) explanations why it isn't just as well as (b) failed attempts.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
~50k means 50.000 Euros or 500.000 Euros?
The value is important because cutting 20% or 30% in biggest budget
means
to justify that to the stakeholders.
The model that FDC is bringing to the chapters is more complex than previously because the chapters have to find external funds.
This means that the group of stakeholders has to be enlarged (a lot).
I would give you the definition of stakeholders from ITIL: "those individuals or groups that have an interest in an organization,
service or
project and are potentially interested or engaged in the activities, resources, targets or deliverables".
WMF is one stakeholders.
The submitters of a project are stakeholders, the members of the associations are stakeholders, the editor of Wikimedia projects are stakeholders and so on.
In this case the FDC cannot evaluate the strategy of a chapter
because WMF
is *one of the stakeholders*.
And WMF cannot say that a chapter has not a strategy because a
decision
like this generates as consequence a complete review of the strategy
in
order to attract stakeholders.
Basically if WMF is asking to find external funds to reduce the risk,
the
consequence is that WMF is also declaring to would be a stakeholder
with
less importance and less impact in the decision of the strategy of the chapter.
This is not my personal opinion, it's an evident consequence of
biggest
budget.
regards
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
darekj@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:
> Hi Balazs, > > I'm quite puzzled and wondering what are you basing your opinion > of
the
FDC > members' zero initial experience. I can speak only for myself, but
I was
an > ED of an NGO for 6 years (and successfully applied for grants and
ran a
> ~50k annual budget), and I've been on the funds dissemination > board
for
> > best, > > dariusz "pundit" > > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Balázs Viczián < > balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu> wrote: > > > In regards to the original problem brought up by Gerard, FDC is
more
> > or less on its maximum I think. > > > > Its members never did such (or similar) job(s) before FDC (the
closest
> > would be credit checks, but that is like and IEG grant review -
it is
> > pretty far from such a comprehensive grant - technically a > > full "business plan" - review) > > > > Despite the little to zero initial experience of its members, > > all-volunteer setup and the ever changing circumstances (global
goals,
> > focus points, etc.) and how in general awful it sounds if you > > say
it
> > out lout that an all-amateur (in the good sense) and > > inexperienced > > group of people are handling > > out USD 6 million every year in their free time and for free, it
works
> > pretty well. > > > > Not perfect but you can not demand or expect perfection from > > such
a
> setup. > > > > That is why there is a whole process now to correct the mistakes
that
> > arise from this "non-professional system", including a dedicated > > ombudsperson for the case(s). > > > > I think this is fair enough, the quality of the reviews are
visibly
> > improving from year to year and for the first time there is a > > real > > possibility to fix the mistakes and errors made, like the > > "incoherentness" of reviews. > > > > Things from this point could be better only through radical
changes to
> > the system imo. > > > > Balazs > > > > 2014-11-25 9:41 GMT, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com: > > > In my opinion the work of the FDC cannot be limited to compare
three
> > years, > > > to evaluate three budgets and to evaluate three impacts. > > > > > > I would say that it's *out of context*. > > > > > > I have had this feeling when I have read that the FDC consider
that
> > Amical > > > is the best example to follow. > > > > > > How "to follow"? Amical operates in a different context than
other
> > > chapters. The question that a good example can be *cloned* is > > surrealistic. > > > > > > Ok, nothing to say but: > > > a) Amical operates in small community where the language is a
strong
> glue > > > within the community > > > b) Amical has a strong inter-relation Wikimedia projects = organization > > > c) Amical has no big internal conflicts generated by external > > > or > internal > > > questions (may be the opposite) > > > d) the territory where Amical operates is relatively small > > > > > > A good example to compare Amical is with Wikimedia Israel. > > > > > > I would not speak in the specific case of WM DE but I suggest
to look
> in > > > the history of the German projects and in the German chapter
and to
> check > > > how many external decisions have had an impact in the German community > to > > > generate a bias. I don't think that these decisions have been > > > a
good
> > > solution to improve the community participation to the > > > projects. > > > > > > What I see is that the numbers of editors is decreasing a lot
in the
> > > biggest projects. > > > > > > It may be caused by a wrong strategy where is privileged the diversity > > and > > > the Global South but without paying attention that the
historical
> > > communities and to the "usual" editors. May be I am wrong but
there
are > > > more online projects becoming attractive for the "potential"
editors
> and > > > the change of the target is not producing a real impact. > > > > > > So it's not a question of comparison of three budget. > > > > > > If the problem is critical the solution to limit the > > > decreasing
is
not > > > beneficial. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > Il 24/Nov/2014 19:14 "Sydney Poore" sydney.poore@gmail.com > > > ha > scritto: > > > > > >> Hi Patrik, > > >> > > >> > > >> During this round of the FDC evaluating the requests, the
majority
of > > the > > >> organizations that we were looking at had submitted requests
to the
> FDC > > >> for > > >> the past 3 years. While we have seen improvement around
strategic
> > >> planning, > > >> budget planning and evaluation, there is still a great amount
of
room > > for > > >> improvement from everyone in the wikimedia movement > > >> (including
the
> WMF.) > > >> > > >> If you read the recommendations, FDC is primarily asking the
largest
> > >> organizations to re-evaluate their current capacity to > > >> deliver impact > to > > >> the movement in line with the funds that they are using. In
many
> > instances > > >> it involves looking at the organizations overall capacity to
develop
> and > > >> execute a strategic plan. Because the FDC is making
recommendations
> > about > > >> unrestricted funds, rather than focusing on a specific > > >> project
or
> > program, > > >> often the reductions in funds is linked to concerns about an > > organizations > > >> capacity to grow (eg., hire and manage more staff, do more complicated > > >> projects.) > > >> > > >> > > >> Warm regards, > > >> > > >> Sydney Poore > > >> User:FloNight > > >> Member FDC > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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>
> > > > > > -- > > __________________________ > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > i centrum badawczego CROW > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > Recenzje > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > Pacific Standard: >
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia > The Wikipedian: >
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> _______________________________________________ > 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>
>
-- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
> Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ 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
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
--
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge