I have a couple of concerns, a review has the potential to stagnate the WMF as indicated from WMConf in Berlin thats already a problem and its impacting regular activities that take longer to organise. Traditionally WLE offers a trip to Wikimania that fine this year as its offering Montreal but what happens for WLE 2017 the organisors(WM Ukraine) need to decide and submit a budget to FDC this year to cover the cost of that prize but there is no plan.
Another problem is the FDC process timeline will cripple the WMF as that doesnt look beyond the immediate 12 months, I have no issue with funding and activity transparency but the WMF has to be looking further advanced then the current processes dictate. Also note that this money already donated to the WMF any process should take care to ensure its not just process for process sake nor should it be run just to give a vocal group of low-non contributory complainants power over the WMF. On 3 June 2016 at 03:19, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: > Den 2016-06-02 kl. 20:07, skrev Nathan: > >> To Anders' point, perhaps not all insights >> offered will be new to everyone. >> > > Perhaps unwise of me. I state here what I would expect to come out of such > an audit/review (and I do not write this to start a heated discussion, I > could be very wrong, but to be more concrete, what an audit could mean) > > 1.The routine and processes to run the Boards internal operations are on > par with what could be seen as needed considering budget, world wide > operations etc. > > 2.The routines and processes to follow up an control the operations of WMF > is seriously underdeveloped considering the size of the > organisation/budget. And an audit could give expensive advice on how to > improve, but we have this competence much closer at hand as many chapters > have good routines and process in place to follow up an control its own > operations (partly thx to FDC). The Board could improve by just using best > practice from our chapters. > > 3.The composition of the Board, mandates given to members of the Board and > by whom, formal relation between the Board and the stakeholders of our > movement, is a complete mess. And an audit would only be able to state > this, not how it ought to be resolved. > > And if I am about right, there is a risk that it is only the no 1 which > initiate thorough discussions, of like how to put up protocol to reflect > better transparency (and where the audit very well could pass this part all > together), and this is not the key problem, but a symptom. And an audit > would not be expected to come up with any concrete suggestions on how to > fix the serious underlying problem of p 3 - We must solve this independent > of audits > > Anders > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>