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 <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 16 May 2017 at 11:52, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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: 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