Robert,
What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Robert Fernandez
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:46 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] June 23: Update on Wikimedia movement 
strategy process (#19)

>By not explaining clearly to the community what was happening 
>initially,

Please don't speak for the entire community. Plenty of us thought that their 
response was quite clear.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greg and Anna
>
> This is a most interesting response and illustrates very well the 
> value of transparency.  By not explaining clearly to the community 
> what was happening initially, the Foundation has managed to place 
> itself and the community at odds, and has managed to spend ten hours 
> of staff time (ten hours – really?) explaining that you are not going 
> to explain the Foundation's system of financial monitoring and control 
> over this multi-million dollar project.
>
> Perhaps next time a valued member of the community asks a sensible 
> question about a point of financial management you will be more ready, 
> willing and able to give a clear concise and informative answer to the 
> community and pre-empt this sort of unproductive discussion.  The more 
> information you share with the community, the more acceptance, 
> goodwill and trust you will build in that community, and, the better 
> placed the community wil be to help you.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> <gvar...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Pine,
> >
> > A proper response would take the Wikimedia Foundation some time to 
> > prepare. As Anna has tried to indicate, and as evidenced by a number 
> > of things, there are indeed a number of financial oversights.
> >
> > Regarding costs, as has been previously stated by the Foundation and 
> > Board, the Board approved a spending resolution last year for 
> > expenses related to the movement strategy of up to $2.5 million over 
> > Fiscal Year
> > 2016-17 (July 2016 - June 2017) and Fiscal Year 2017-18 (July 2017 - 
> > June 2018).
> >
> > On the topic of how resources are spent, I would like to share more 
> > on
> the
> > cost of your request. Because you escalated in your language (e.g.,
> calling
> > our financial practices lax and asking to speak to a member of the
> Board),
> > three senior leaders and two Board members have now spent time on 
> > this. I imagine that your concern is genuine, but the speed with 
> > which you went from asking for financial details when we have ample 
> > financial oversight, to hinting at fiscal malfeasance was a bit quick.
> >
> > You may not know this, but these kinds of requests are costly, 
> > particularly when it escalates with a strongly negative comment and 
> > a demand to speak to a Board member. I share these figures on the 
> > cost of this request thus far in the service of transparency.
> >
> > • 6: Number of staff involved in responding, including 3 senior 
> > leaders • 2: Number of Board members now involved • 1.5 hours: 
> > Estimated amount of Board time spent thus far • 10 hours: Estimated 
> > amount of staff time spent thus far • $1,500: Estimated cost of 
> > staff time (considering expenses beyond just
> > salary)
> >
> > Providing the detailed answer you have requested would require 
> > considerably more time and increase the cost more. We have decided 
> > not to provide that response because we have ample financial 
> > oversight and we would like not to set a precedent of spending 
> > resources discussing this level of detail on financial matters. You 
> > are a valued member of this community, and this is not the best way 
> > for us to work together. That is why we have established processes.
> >
> > We appreciate your passion and dedication to the vision and our 
> > communities and hope you will read this response in the good faith 
> > that
> it
> > was written.
> >
> > Greg and Anna (2 of the 6 staff involved)
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 27, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Anna,
> > >
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and 
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume 
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source 
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this 
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >
> > > Please answer my question: how much is this timeline extension
> projected
> > to
> > > cost,
> > > and from what source are the funds being drawn?
> > >
> > >
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change 
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses 
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to 
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 
> > >> stakeholder
> > > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are 
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they 
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important 
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need 
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >
> > > OK, that makes sense.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to control
> costs
> > in
> > >> the strategy process?
> > >>
> > >
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we 
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are 
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any 
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that assessment. Simply because expenses are 
> > > within budget don't mean that all expenses which were charged to 
> > > the budget are reasonable and accurate, and I am disappointed to 
> > > hear that WMF's standards for its finances are so lax. This 
> > > convinces me all the more that my original request is important 
> > > for WMF to answer: please discuss what measures are being taken to 
> > > control costs in the strategy process.
> > > The level of detail that I now think WMF should provide is much 
> > > higher than the level of detail with which I previously would have 
> > > been
> > satisfied.
> > > My level of concern here is high enough that I am asking the WMF 
> > > Audit Committee chair, Kelly, to comment on this situation. 
> > > Something
> > seems
> > > very wrong here, and I am concerned about WMF's financial integrity.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > astillw...@wikimedia.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello Pine,
> > >>
> > >> Good evening. In line.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This thread is going in many directions, and I'm enjoying 
> > >>> reading the conversation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If I may go back to some questions that I asked in my earlier 
> > >>> post, I
> > >> would
> > >>> like to hear from Katherine (or someone else at WMF, perhaps Anna):
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> First, some context... a good deal of this has been iterative by
> > design. We
> > >> had an overarching idea of where we were headed (e.g. a shared
> direction
> > >> first, roles and responsibilities second), but then we knew we 
> > >> would
> > learn
> > >> to refine or course correct based on what we hear.
> > >>
> > >> We've been hearing to extend the timeline on all 
> > >> fronts--organized
> > groups
> > >> and affiliates (e.g., time for conversation), on wiki (e.g., time 
> > >> for translation and conversation) and new voices and experts 
> > >> (e.g., "we've
> > seen
> > >> all of the data but our communities have yet to see and reflect 
> > >> upon it")... so that is the background reasoning.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * How much is this timeline extension projected to cost, and 
> > >>> from
> what
> > >>> source are the funds being drawn? (Note that this doesn't assume 
> > >>> that
> > the
> > >>> decision was a bad one, but I very much want to know the source 
> > >>> of
> the
> > >>> funds and how much is likely to be drawn from it.)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We've got this covered, Pine. We are fiscally managing this 
> > >> process
> and
> > all
> > >> of our contracts well. Thank you for your concern.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> * Could you elaborate on the benefits of this timetable change 
> > >>> for
> > people
> > >>> who are not involved with affiliates? We've seen some responses 
> > >>> from Strainu and Yaroslov (thank you both!) and I would like to 
> > >>> hear WMF's perspective.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> The benefits of the change in the timetable are that 4/4 
> > >> stakeholder
> > groups
> > >> told us that this was a meaningful exercise, that they are 
> > >> earnestly engaged in thinking about the future, and that they 
> > >> need more time for translation and conversation on this important 
> > >> subject. 3/4 tracks are
> > non
> > >> affiliates (on-wiki, new voices, experts).
> > >>
> > >> We agreed with them. These are meaningful conversations. We are
> > learning a
> > >> lot and we need to hear what people have to say and they need 
> > >> more
> time
> > to
> > >> say it.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> * Could you also discuss what measures are being taken to 
> > >>> control
> costs
> > >> in
> > >>> the strategy process?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We have plenty of measures in place to monitor costs (e.g., we 
> > >> don't
> > need
> > >> to control them because they are not out of control, we are 
> > >> within our budget). Also, describing financial metrics at any 
> > >> lower level of
> detail
> > >> would be a waste of the strategy budget since we are within it.
> > >>
> > >> Always good to hear from you,
> > >> /a
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> Pine
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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=unsubscr
> > >>> ibe>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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=unsubscri
> > >> be>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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>


_______________________________________________
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