Grants talk:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee/Draft FDC Proposal for the Board/Draft FDC process

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

On the content page I have hacked together a draft decision-making mechanism that the FDC could use (if it wants) to make funding allocation decisions. Essentially, my purpose in creating it is to aim to save the FDC some time --- so that at least a little of the ship is built, before they board it and need to start sailing. I think it would be a service to the FDC if we could refine this draft a little for them -- critiquing it, anticipating things that might go wrong or ways this system could be gamed, and refining it to fix those problems. Anyone who wants to help, please feel free :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we'd proposed a FDC of 9 voting members (5 of whom are community-elected, 4 of whom are Board-appointed) and 2 non-voting members who are liaisons from the Board of Trustees, so I'll edit your proposal accordingly.
Also, it's helpful to have you outline these different scenarios. One thing I noticed, if I read them correctly, is that your scenarios have the FDC members coming up with their own perspectives, and the FDC as a whole recommending essentially an average of those different perspectives to the Board. I think it's important to note that, while the "best" recommendation might be an average, the FDC should be positioned as a deliberative body, which jointly develops a recommendation to the Board of Trustees; the recommendation should reflect a majority perspective. Does that distinction make sense? LauraL TBG (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be like the higher courts; the court publishes it decision with concuring and disenting opinions? Ariconte (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]