Agenda talk:2012-02: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:24, 29 January 2012

When talking about funds dissemination, it would be worth exploring why Grants:Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania, Grants:Arvin Ello/RecentChangesCamp2012 and Grants:Wikitanvir/RecentChangesCamp 2012 rejected by a WMF fellow had acceptances for Grants:SarahStierch/GLAM WIKI Santiago attendance‎ and two other participations grants. The ROI on the first three seems much more clear, whereas the ROI on Sarah's three trips while a WMF fellow and getting paid by the foundation seems less clear. The funding priorities appear to favour an ingroup at the expense of the Foundation's mission. --LauraHale 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the agenda and suggestions are warmly welcome, but this is too specific and operational a topic to be discussed at a Board meeting. You might try developing a page for comparative grant review -- a peer review process separate from GAC might help some grants improve their reception. –SJ talk | translate 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:12, 27 January 2012 view source Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr (talk \| contribs) 0 edits Created page with "When talking about funds dissemination, it would be worth exploring why Grants:Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania, [[Grants:Arvin Ello/RecentChangesC..."		Revision as of 21:24, 29 January 2012 view source Sj (talk \| contribs) 1,403 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	When talking about funds dissemination, it would be worth exploring why [[Grants:Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania]], [[Grants:Arvin Ello/RecentChangesCamp2012]] and [[Grants:Wikitanvir/RecentChangesCamp 2012]] rejected by a WMF fellow had acceptances for [[Grants:SarahStierch/GLAM WIKI Santiago attendance‎]] and two other participations grants. The ROI on the first three seems much more clear, whereas the ROI on Sarah's three trips while a WMF fellow and getting paid by the foundation seems less clear. The funding priorities appear to favour an ingroup at the expense of the Foundation's mission. --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)		When talking about funds dissemination, it would be worth exploring why [[Grants:Laura Hale, Courcelles, Hawkeye7, Chzz/Outreach Oceania]], [[Grants:Arvin Ello/RecentChangesCamp2012]] and [[Grants:Wikitanvir/RecentChangesCamp 2012]] rejected by a WMF fellow had acceptances for [[Grants:SarahStierch/GLAM WIKI Santiago attendance‎]] and two other participations grants. The ROI on the first three seems much more clear, whereas the ROI on Sarah's three trips while a WMF fellow and getting paid by the foundation seems less clear. The funding priorities appear to favour an ingroup at the expense of the Foundation's mission. --[[User:LauraHale\|LauraHale]] 23:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
			: Comments on the agenda and suggestions are warmly welcome, but this is too specific and operational a topic to be discussed at a Board meeting. You might try developing a page for comparative grant review -- a peer review process separate from GAC might help some grants improve their reception. <span style="background-color:white;color:#bbb;">–[[User:Sj\|SJ]]<small> [[User Talk:Sj\|<font style="color:#f90;">talk</font>]] \| [[Translation requests\|''translate'']]   </small></span> 21:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)