I meant User:Varnent. :)
I blame the turkey chemicals. :p
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <gregory.var...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the
> board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled
> community members.
> IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee
> should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their
> primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I
> would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they
> are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending
> that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a
> whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing
> their their colleague’s due diligence for them.
> -greg (User:Pine)
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
>> review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
>> Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
>> organization that has a similar scale.
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a
>>>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include
>>>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
>>>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
>>> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
>>> me goosebumps...
>>>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of
>>>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
>>>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
>>>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
>>>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
>>> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
>>> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
>>> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
>>> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
>>> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
>>> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
>>> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
>>> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: