<snip>
  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.
</spin>

Im not mixing two issues  I chose one well known(also current activity)
being impacted by the lack of forward thinking cautioning that the current
level of stagnation at the WMF has caused enough issues care should be
taken in conducting a review that it doesnt further deepen the problems.
The additional point that you articulate is that different people are doing
different things but they are acting in isolation making decisions which
impact others outside of their areas of responsibility. We see this in so
many of the past decisions that when its implemented more energy and
resources are spent placating the community and fixing problems than was
spent in making the original decision.

On 4 June 2016 at 03:35, Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to