Where does the Board Audit Committee fit into this?
Risker On 22 October 2013 07:00, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > hello, > > below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds > Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate > in the FDC process. > > A little background: > > In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013 > budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its > current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of > that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and > after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither > by the FDC nor by WMF. > > In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014 > should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat > to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC > should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF > budget for 2014-2015. > > After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key > stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position > regarding WMF participation in FDC process. > > > best, > > > Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit") > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM > Subject: WMF in FDC process > To: Sue Gardner <sgard...@wikimedia.org> > > > Dear Sue, > > I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the > FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on > the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending > cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing > to specific areas, when appropriate). > > The advantages of the approach are numerous: > > - It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated, > - It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested > in, > - It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more > decision power and influence, > - It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in > an organized review if the WMF budget. > > The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a > special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot > of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically > for the FDC process). > > We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for > application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline > shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April > submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in > Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them. > > best, > > > on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee > > Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit") > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>