For what it's worth, there has been previous discussions of having external reviews of WMF spending, such as a peer review from a similar institution. I think that this is a good idea. This also fits in with my long-standing hope that WMF will become more transparent with its financial expenditures.
Pine On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 May 2017 at 11:52, rupert THURNER <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why the amount is missing for the WMF? > > > > Rupert > > > > > > > Hello Rupert - > > The Funds Dissemination Committee is not tasked with recommending funding > for the Wikimedia Foundation; the committee only reviews and provides > feedback on the draft annual plan. > > Risker/Anne > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
