Talk:Funds Dissemination Committee Advisory Group/Formation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

typo in time commitment?[edit]

Currently reads "Advisory Group members should expect to spend approximately 4 per week on average on this role". Am I correct in filling in "hours" after "4"...? The Land (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, correct. User:Thehelpfulone already caught the typo and fixed it. Thanks! --Barry Newstead (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not associated with a chapter[edit]

Hi! Do I understand “2-3 Wikim/pedians not associated with a chapter (from different geographies)” correctly that this excludes active editors who are (also) members of a Chapter but not in their Board? Or does “associated” just mean not to be in the Board? Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for seeking clarification as "associated" is vague. To be more specific, "associated" can be defined as on the Board, on the staff or near term intent to seek positions on either. I would include chapters, the Wikimedia Foundation and other potential affiliated organizations who may seek significant (more than a few projects here and there) and sustained funding from the FDC process. The idea is to have people who are not likely to have direct dealings with the FDC and bring a different perspective from within the community. This is not to say that those with such interests aren't expected to set aside their interests in the process and take a "movement" view. Hope this helps? --Barry Newstead (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your instant response! I'm currently working on a German signpost (Kurier) article which also will be forwarded to vereinde-l and wikide-l, and had to know which persons would be allowed to nominate themselves for FDC. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping spread the word! Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 19:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
What about reps from new models of affiliation? Tomer A. -- Talk 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 1[edit]

The WCA does not yet have a mechanism for selecting chapters reps. Tomer A. -- Talk 07:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The WCA doesn't yet exist... Lots of chapters have agreed to join it when it does, but that's all. --Tango (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Supported by paragraph[edit]

I currently see two chapters in the supportters list (Wikimedia Serbia and Wikimedia Bangaladash). Have those chapters decided to formally support these candidates or is that just part of the signatures of people before the chapters' name? Tomer A. -- Talk 10:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. This should be clarified. Theo10011 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments?[edit]

If I want to add comments about certain candidates that might or might not be relevant. How should I go about it? Can Asaf or Barry answer that please? Should I leave a message here or under the candidate's name? Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave a message here. --Barry Newstead (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Against one part of the FDC composition[edit]

I am strongly against one part of the FDC composition, "Experienced senior executive from a large chapter [2]" The note clarify that Pavel would be best positioned to fill this. As I see it, that is completely antithetical to the idea of forming a committee vs. cherry-picking its composition. There are only 3-4 large chapters to begin with, and prob. 1-2 people who might qualify for the designation of senior executive from a large chapter. The document tailor-makes a requirement that only Pavel can fulfill and then explicitly suggests him as the best candidate. A more transparent alternative, would be to just add "Pavel" under composition, instead of 2 separate places with the notes. I am against any such inclusion. Theo10011 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The FDC process has the potential to have a major impact on how staff organizations are managed and it is important to have executive perspectives in the advisory group to ensure that the operational implications of certain design choices are understood. This is a needed function, hence it was one of the slots. The recommendation of Pavel as the most likely choice as the other leaders of chapters have been in their roles for a very short time. If someone wants to argue for someone else, they are welcome too, which is a better process than simply appointing Pavel. Note: I fail to understand how the approach is not transparent. It is all there on the page. --Barry Newstead (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The criteria leaves only one qualified candidate. You suggested it in the notes, it doesn't leave a lot to decide, discuss or vote. It would be an automatic appointment if the criteria is that specific. I would suggest maybe broadening the criteria a bit here? It's hard to argue for someone else because the criteria is so specific. Also, I don't think hired staff are usually leaders of the chapters? while senior executive is being specific, there is still a board above them. Theo10011 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If Sue has in mind a particular person then surely it is more transparent to say so rather than keep quiet about it and have other people run for a position they are almost certain not to get. Pavel is unique in being an experienced chapter executive so if Sue wants an experienced chapter executive on the advisory group then obviously she's going to pick Pavel and should be open and transparent about that, as she has been. --Tango (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)