Return to article

Proposal_talk: Paralympic Winter Sports

Revision as of 04:44, 8 December 2012 by Lankiveil (talk | contribs) (→‎Retrospective applications: re)

The proposal

The total cost of the trip is AU$12,000 for all three people attending the trip, the grant request is for one person (myself) only and for the person whom can't afford the trip the most. The success of the trip weighs on the photographer to get accreditation to Sochi (APC needs evidence that the photographer can handle the conditions [not just the cold but the light due to reflection off the snow, cloudy weather which limits light]), without a photographer, there would be no accreditation. Bidgee 15:23, 6 December 2012 (EST)

the "preamble"

In what way does this edit - - enhance the proposal? It is probably best discussed on the talk page. -- Chuq 19:57, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Retrospective applications

Treating WMAU as one's private treasury, launching into a project in the expectation of funding from the chapter when no approval has been forthcoming, is setting a very bad precedent.

As long as the board doesn't mind, I'm going to launch an expensive project now and will ask for funding in retrospect. If I don't receive it, I'll go into a public spin-out. Tony1 20:42, 6 December 2012 (EST)

It isnt retrospective claim this was in front of the committee well before it they were due to depart, it was queries by the committee in October how much extra it'd cost for myself and another editor to attend, my committments here meant I could leave early enough to get the benfits of cheaper airfares which blew those costs out. I was under the impression that funding was approved on this when it was queried by the committee how extra to include two more photographers. Gnangarra 10:28, 7 December 2012 (EST)
Whilst it does seem to me that you're basically correct, Tony - your comment does also seem a little harsh - as a complete outsider, what I've been feeling about this broo ha ha is mainly sympathy for all concerned - in particular sympathy that what I would have thought was a close decision (should I pony up without the funding in the bank) was probably a mistake. I think it's right and important for the Committee to follow structured processes, and from outside it seems like that's exactly what happened. Privatemusings 11:17, 7 December 2012 (EST)
I suspect that our chapter can kiss goodbye any hope of FDC funding if we can't get a basic aspect of governance right. The WMF board has made transparency and openness a priority. Tony1 14:46, 7 December 2012 (EST)
Tony, I agree that dealing with a funding matter retrospectively is not the best way to do things, and, in general, I would not support retrospective applications. However, in this particular instance, there was email to the committee in the advance of the event and, I understand, discussions involving at least some of committee members, but, for whatever reason, no proposal was ever put forward. For the reasons of openness and transparency, a proposal should be made for people to comment on. By creating this proposal (with Laura's consent), I am taking this matter through the proper process which allows for member comment followed by a committee decision. I believe that the question that we should be asking within the committee is "if the committee had originally received this as a proposal instead of an email, would the committee have funded it at that time given the usual considerations of strategic fit and value-for-money?". Kerry Raymond 08:47, 8 December 2012 (EST)
  • There is a misunderstanding of processes here, the mandatory requirement of using the on Wiki proposal for events is something that has occured since the AGM, prior to that a proposal only needed to be sent to the committee mailing list for cosideration. The committee recieved that email and the requirements of that committee was followed, there's no "if the committee had originally received this as a proposal instead of an email, would the committee have funded it at that time given the usual considerations of strategic fit and value-for-money?" because it did, my emphasis. While its laudible that the committee is improving processes the committee still needs to accept in good faith the way in which applications were made in good faith according to the requirements of the previous committee. Gnangarra 11:28, 8 December 2012 (EST)
Well, having been a committee member since the AGM, I can say that we have not introduced this policy since the AGM. The Proposal policy appears to have been introduced in July 2012, looking at the edit history, so would appear to have been in place at the time of the email. But clearly it was relatively new at that time and not everyone may have been aware of it. Kerry Raymond 13:37, 8 December 2012 (EST)
The decision to have everything on the wiki has only occured since the AGM, it wasnt what was occurring when the application was submitted and the application should be treated by the current committee in the good faith that it was submitted to the previous committee. Gnangarra 14:49, 8 December 2012 (EST)
I want to confirm that this application is in every substantial regard the same as the one that was submitted to the committee in October. At the time latitude was given to Laura to submit it outside of the public proposals process because she was (in name at least) a member of the committee. I don't think this sort of discussion about what happened in the past is particularly helpful at this point though, does anyone have anything to say about the merits of the proposal itself? Lankiveil 15:44, 8 December 2012 (EST).