Hi Gnangarra, (and a reply to one of Anders' points below)

> On 3 Jun 2016, at 01:34, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think you're mixing two different issues there. Wikimania plans are quite 
distinct from the capacity of the WMF board/senior leadership - the WMF is big 
enough that those are done by different people, unlike in smaller organisations 
where a governance review can have a much bigger impact on the amount of 
programmatic work that the organisation is capable of doing.

> 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.

Longer term strategic plans are very important for FDC applications, but they 
are distinct from annual plans. As I understand it, going through the FDC 
process meant that WMF had to start their annual planning earlier, which is 
good. Thinking longer term would definitely be better, but that's a step 
further along than where things currently are. I don't think that any Wikimedia 
organisation could set detailed plans on 3-year timescales yet, which is more 
the norm in universities.

> 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.

Definitely - but an investment in the process now to ensure better governance 
is much better than extra costs due to poor governance further down the line.

> On 3 June 2016 at 03:19, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote:
>> 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.

I would hope that a review would be a review, not an audit, i.e. it would look 
at options for improving matters, not just saying what the current situation 
is. This was the case for WMUK, and was done by looking at external best 
practices, and by interviewing other stakeholders in the organisation.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to