[Foundation-l] Re: NEH Grant résumés

[email protected] wrote:

>I have taken up the /Staff section of of the grant application.=20
>Having consulted with others the best way to do this seems to be for
>anyone willing to help with the grant to send a r=E9sum=E9 to
>reflection-Re5JQEeQqe9fmgfxC/sS/[email protected]  I will compile them.  Please tailor your
>experiences/education towards relevancy to WikiMedia.
>
>We are especially interested in r=E9sum=E9s from developers and
>bureaucrats, but all are necessarily welcome. All Board members are
>asked to submit.  In addition, we need as many people as possible to
>answer the following questions.  Please do not reply to the mailing
>list, but to [email protected]  This will prevent clutter and will
>maintain your privacy/anonymity.
>
>1) What is your full name and nickname? (Include a URL to your user page=
).
>
>2) Describe your duties at Wikipedia and qualifications for those
>duties.  If you have a title what is your title, and how long have you
>held it.
>
>3) Indicate the amount of time that you, the projects staff,
>anticipate committing to the project on a monthly basis (hours), and
>for how many months, years.
>
If the author of this email is not willing to even identify themselves=20
to us, I don't see why any of us would want to send them a r=E9sum=E9. Al=
so,=20
I can't understand why r=E9sum=E9s from bureaucrats would be requested in=
=20
this context.

Note that the Staff section of the grant page was only just made into a=20
subpage by an IP address. It has since been edited only by that same IP=20
address and a user named Alterego (except for one minor edit by=20
Eloquence). The username, plus Alterego's extremely short contribution=20
history on Meta and en:, sets off all my sockpuppet alerts. In fact, my=20
initial impulse is to attribute this to Bird, given that user's peculiar=20
interest in "exposing" Wikipedia as a front for who knows what. No doubt=20
Bird could concoct all kinds of conspiracy theories out of our=20
collective r=E9sum=E9s.

If the request is legitimate, and I'm the one spinning conspiracy=20
theories, then two (actually, three) requests. One, could you please=20
tell us who you really are? Two, would somebody who's a little more "in=20
charge" of the grant process, like Danny or one of the board members,=20
confirm that soliciting this information is actually necessary and=20
appropriate at this time? Finally, when you reply to a digest version of=20
this list, please do not include the entire digest in your reply. Thank y=
ou.

--Michael Snow