Having carefully read through some of the FDC rationales I thought they were appropriately strategic and made it pretty obvious exactly what those chapters that did not get what they were hoping for, need to change in order to bid more successfully. I found them encouraging and a good demonstration of why the FDC is a better process than the 100% WMF directed one that used to exist.
As a long past Chapters Association chairman, who is definitely out of favour with WMF unelected big-wigs due to being controversial, I do not get any impression that this is driven by a WMF-centric agenda. Quite the opposite, most of the comments the FDC have made push us all to be more volunteer centric and away from either pointless centralization, empire-building or becoming scions of the Foundation. Chapter boards who are responsible for less successful bids, may need to consider this is a good time to not only take another bite at their strategy, but empower themselves to reconsider how they grow their organization rather than being led by growth alone. Too often we see measure such as employee counts or bigger budgets getting significantly more oxygen as being good things compared to volunteer* support, volunteer leadership, better transparency or even the reduction of programmes that fail to be volunteer centric or deliver healthy volunteer engagement. * For those chapters that make this an issue by counting volunteers in exceedingly creative ways, by "volunteer" I mean "unpaid volunteers". Fae On 23 November 2014 at 10:37, Lodewijk <lodew...@effeietsanders.org> wrote: > I can very well understand why people are careful about commenting. Most > people who have the insight to make sensible comments on the con located > matter have a stake in it. They are active in the wmf, want to run for a > committee in which process they might be deemed too opinionated or they > fear that it might harm the future applications of their chapter or > project. I'm afraid that to a very large extent there are too many > interdependencies for a proper public discussion on many issues. > > That said, while I disagree with several things in the advice, such as the > somewhat childish and symbolic cut of 2000 USD against wmar, overall I also > see various improvements in the level of detail and arguments that ought to > be applauded. > > Lodewijk -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
