Robert, What makes you think Rogol speaks for anyone but Rogol? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hello Pine, > > >> > > >> Good evening. In line. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> 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: > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > >>> <mailto:[email protected]?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: > > >> [email protected] > > >> Unsubscribe: > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > > >> <mailto:[email protected]?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: [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> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
