1. Scholarship Review Committee formation:
← Older revision
Revision as of 17:07, 27 July 2012
Line 7:
Line 7:
*:I like the staggered terms. It's a lot of work on the committee, so maybe the time could be reduced to two instead of three years? [[User:Jwild|Jwild]] ([[User talk:Jwild|talk]]) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*:I like the staggered terms. It's a lot of work on the committee, so maybe the time could be reduced to two instead of three years? [[User:Jwild|Jwild]] ([[User talk:Jwild|talk]]) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*:: Three year terms led to burn out on the [[w:WP:AC|English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee]], resulting in the terms being reduced to two years which has worked a lot better - so it does make sense to follow this lesson for the Scholarship Committee. The [[wm2012:Scholarships/Team|current scholarship committee team]] comprises of the program manager and six/seven reviewers. It makes sense to give the program manager indefinite appointment subject to remaining in that job at the Foundation, with a set number of reviewer members being appointed every year (at least one representing the next hosts). The total number of reviewers is open to debate - if there is a desire for a quicker review of applications and/or more complex criteria then pushing it up four/five appointments per year (nine to eleven total members, including the program manager) may be appropriate. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
*:: Three year terms led to burn out on the [[w:WP:AC|English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee]], resulting in the terms being reduced to two years which has worked a lot better - so it does make sense to follow this lesson for the Scholarship Committee. The [[wm2012:Scholarships/Team|current scholarship committee team]] comprises of the program manager and six/seven reviewers. It makes sense to give the program manager indefinite appointment subject to remaining in that job at the Foundation, with a set number of reviewer members being appointed every year (at least one representing the next hosts). The total number of reviewers is open to debate - if there is a desire for a quicker review of applications and/or more complex criteria then pushing it up four/five appointments per year (nine to eleven total members, including the program manager) may be appropriate. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 19:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
+
*::Good comparison point with ArbComm - I think 2 years makes sense. Having 10 active committee members should be plenty and really help the workload - the 9-11 target members would be sufficient and manageable. The election/selection process is the harder topic.... [[User:Jwild|Jwild]] ([[User talk:Jwild|talk]]) 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
+
+
*One thing that has been suggested is that those on the Scholarship Committee be "rewarded" for their work with a free or subsidized trip to Wikimania themselves. This sort of incentive hasn't been necessary for most members in the past, since they tended to be board members or sponsored by their chapters, but it could be important in the future as the committee expands: more important than simply providing motivation, this could reduce barriers to entry into the committee itself. As of now, if you are on the committee you are excluded from receiving the scholarship. On the one hand, I think we shouldn't reduce our representation on the committee to only those people who have local chapters which could support them or who have the financial means to support themselves. On the other hand, I don't want the committee to become simply a way to get a free ticket to Wikimania. Thoughts? [[User:Jwild|Jwild]] ([[User talk:Jwild|talk]]) 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
==2. Chapters, WMF, and Organizing team dynamics==
==2. Chapters, WMF, and Organizing team dynamics==