On 10 May 2014, at 19:43, Balázs Viczián wrote:
>>
>>
>> You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in
>> these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this
>> round:
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Finan
>
>
> You may also visit an overview of the financial information presented in
> these proposals, which includes information for all proposals in this
> round:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Financial_overview
>
>
This page is empty.
Vince
hi Erlend,
I agree with you that chapter visits are a good idea and we should do more
systematically in this area.
We are aware that the smaller chapters cannot possibly have the capacity to
prepare the same kind of proposals as large chapters, and we mainly make
comparisons between organizations
Thanks for your answer dariusz!
Still, I think there are still 3 critical issues:
It requires that chapters are really able to express, in a foreign
language, advanced phenomena and characteristics of their work. I have seen
grant applications that prove the opposite,
The only thing I Ask for, i
hi Erlend,
there is a systematic schedule of site visits by WMF, but obviously it
cannot be done for each chapter every year. From my grantmaking experience
with several major foundations, I have to say that doing assessments basing
on desktop materials is typical. In fact, the professional standa
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
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
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 :
> Actually, Dariusz, if the FDC (which is not WMF/FDC staff) made the
> request, then the sentence is incorrect. As it is
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 mad
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 a
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 as
Greetings, all:
Staff proposal assessments have been posted on Meta for three proposals that
were submitted in 2013-2014 Round 2. At the FDC's request, FDC staff have
not published an assessment for the WMF proposal; however, an assessment of
the WMF proposal has been published by WMDE.
The propo
12 matches
Mail list logo
