hi Theo,
Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF
On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative
of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within
Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from
it.
I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a
little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the
FDC.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb
Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33:
From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or
chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community
member, I tend to see the WMF as special
Note that I wasn't saying it isn't special in some way, I was just
saying that
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Hi,
I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to
finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's
budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny
Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a
conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore
the FDC's recommendation altogether and award itself an unreasonably
generous budget. However, from last year's experience, where the WMF plan
Actually, I'd say that the opportunity for conflict of interest is
extremely high, and there's pretty much no way that the FDC can make
recommendations on the overall budget (and the very sizeable portion of
said budget that is largely dispensed based on their recommendation)
without crossing the
hi Nathan,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority
of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with
having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity.
If the
hi Nathan,
I'm not saying that the problems you're pointing out are non-existent.
Rather, I'd say that they are likely unavoidable. I'm not certain about
Western Europeans' solidarity anyway - I have serious doubts if any of the
Western European FDC members would have any preference for other
Dear Dariusz,
dear other FDC members,
thanks for your brave and necessary step.
Best
Cornelius
Cornelius Kibelka
Twitter: @jaancornelius
Mobile:+258-84-4260524 (Vodacom MZ)
German number currently offline
On 22 October 2013 13:00, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hello,
This seems like a preposterous proposition, if not for the distinct
recollection that this might have been insinuated by Ms. Gardner in the
discussion leading up to the formation of FDC. It still reads like a poorly
thought out attempt at some form of a coup or the making of one. This is as
bad an
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that
circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as
Hi Nemo
I'll get straight to my point here before answering in-line. I see this as
yet another move to change or one-up the power structures at play here. WMF
created this FDC to evaluate chapter finances, FDC is still limited in what
they believe is their scope, WMF still has a great deal of
13 matches
Mail list logo
