Elecciones de la Fundación Wikimedia/Elecciones del CDF/2015/Preguntas/1
|La elección finalizó el 11 junio 2017. No se aceptarán más votos.|
Los resultados fueron anunciados el 19 junio 2017. Por favor considere enviar cualquier comentario sobre la elección del 2017 en esta página.
- 1 Tasas de crecimiento
- 2 ¿A mayor cantidad de fondos recaudados, menos problemas distribuyéndolos?
- 3 Métricas cuantitativas
- 4 Diversity
- 5 Funding priority to women projects to equalize gender gap
- 6 FDC process for smaller affiliates
- 7 Innovation and risk
- 8 Predictability of funding
- 9 Community, culture and Idealabs
Tasas de crecimiento
¿A mayor cantidad de fondos recaudados, menos problemas distribuyéndolos?
¡Hola a todos! Estoy interesado en escuchar sus ideas sobre la siguiente suposición:
Hi! In the past the FDC criticized that projects in annual plan lack quantitive metrics refering to the global metrics developed by the WMF Grantmaking team. But the greater problems of the movement are around diversity of contributors, growth in the "south" and at least stability in the "north", and winning and motivating volunteers is not likely to be measured in quantitive metrics. You can hardly tell, if a specific project oder activity produces contributors or content (in the aftermath). So the favored more quantitive metrics seem to lead to a bias towards more technical projects and less community oriented projects, at least done by larger grantees. What is your opinion on that issue? Do you think the metrics are suitable for all grantees, how will you assure that not only quantity, but also quality counts? --Don-kun (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Various projects by various Chapters and individuals had been funded during the last few years. I would like to ask you about your opinion on their diversity.
Thanks. Gryllida 04:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Funding priority to women projects to equalize gender gap
Our WP is planning for equalizing gender gap in view of 80:20 male/female ratio. As a member of FDC/OMBUDSMAN, how would you justify more funding to women’s projects in the established context that large population deserves much more funding. Nannadeem (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
FDC process for smaller affiliates
Some smaller affiliates choose to remain with GAC funding instead of FDC funding because the GAC process is more flexible and less burdensome. How do you think that the FDC process could be improved to be more user-friendly for small affiliates? --Pine✉ 02:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Innovation and risk
Predictability of funding
For small organizations, even modest changes in their income from year to year can have significant destabilizing effects on the organization's effectiveness, programs and goals. Are there ways that the FDC can better work with grant applicants so that FDC recommendations are more predictable and so grantees can have an easier time with forecasting their likely funding from round to round? --Pine✉ 02:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Community, culture and Idealabs
As we can see on Research:Spring 2015 Inspire campaign and Research:Spring 2015 Inspire campaign/Survey the result of previous Idealabs are bad, and arguably it can be considered as failure, the part on research page on Inspire Campaign fail to notice oppose !votes is a hint for something, the fact that WMF fail to notice the opposer comments such noting on diversity (not gender but rather a cultural problems), like ignoring local culture and comments that explain why this idealabs may not fit with local Wikimedia communities culture may raise some concern to some, this means WMF and some of its communities fail to notice different point of view. What will you do to fix this problem? What will you do to improve similar grants idealabs in the future? Will you in the future simply ignore the opposing comments on grants in the future if you get elected? --AldNonymousBicara? 18:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)