2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>: > My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that > there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about > what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC. >
Actually the information how GAC works is IMHO much more clear that for FDC. The criteria are well described, and the process is made almost completely transparent. But - judging from from what kinds of applications are accepted via GAC and which are not - it is clear that application to GAC is not a reasonable way for chapters professionalisation. Actually vast majority of chapter's application to GAC for funds to professionalize are usually withdrawn. Among others - the WM NY, WM CZ, WM CA, WM BR, WM ID, WM UA applications were withdrawn in 2012/2013 - sometimes their applications were withdrawn completely (WM CZ among others) or partially - with cut off of the salary/office costs. WM EE, WM Kenya and WM India - were accepted. In case of WM EE and WM Kenya it is clear that these chapters probably won't achieve a professionalization level in predictable future, maybe Indian chapter has a real chance and impact. Anyway - judging from the list of withdrawn applications the GAC is for sure not a solution for professionalisation. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Table -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
