Grants talk:PEG/Grant Advisory Committee/Membership criteria
Do we really need to mention that a member of GAC should not be member in any other committee? It should be definitely valid for the FDC, but not for the others that are hardly of conflict with GAC. I cannot imagine what kind of conflict a member of GAC and a non-FDC committee could have, so my suggestion is to change it to denote FDC exclusively instead of a conflict with other Wikimedia Committees.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a misunderstanding here?
Thanks to its open, non-exclusive membership model, GAC membership does not conflict with membership in other Wikimedia committees, including the Funds Dissemination Committee.
- -- KTC (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder what is the conflict with the other Committees. How about something like:
Thanks to its open, non-exclusive membership model, GAC membership does not conflict with membership in the Funds Dissemination Committee.
--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- This clarification is there because in the original call for volunteers when we set up the GAC, we did say we want folks who are not members of any other committee. We wanted to involve people beyond the "usual suspects", and to avoid people overcommitting. This should not be an issue with the new model we are looking to adopt. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's ok then if we really should avoid people to be members in more than one committee.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This clarification is there because in the original call for volunteers when we set up the GAC, we did say we want folks who are not members of any other committee. We wanted to involve people beyond the "usual suspects", and to avoid people overcommitting. This should not be an issue with the new model we are looking to adopt. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Police investigations?[edit]
Could I ask why this is any business of the GAC's? I was involved in a police investigation last year about a suicide in the 1980s—they rang me twice for useful leads, which I was unable to furnish. Should I have resigned from the GAC???? And what kind of unethical behaviour is at issue overleaf? Tony (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- The criteria say if there are other reasons to exclude. It does not say any involvement in a police investigation is such a reason. Obviously, there's a big difference between being involved in a police investigation and being the subject of a police investigation; even then, it may well have nothing to do with one's fitness to serve on the GAC. In short, this is nothing more than a statement that we think it is conceivable there may be circumstances where we would want to exclude someone from the GAC, to avoid the (nominal) endorsement of them it may imply. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 12:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)