In my opinion there is a little bit confusion.
The audit is required by someone (in this case the board) and the audit
reports to the entity requiring it (the board).
To communicate or not depends on the board. If the board required it to
have a clearer picture to take a decision, the board can keep it private
mainly if there are some personal questions involved in the audit.
In this specific case if there is a problem between the staff and the
community (as I understand) the audit cannot be managed nor by the staff
neither by the community, because are the two conflictual parties and to
communicate the results to both parties may revamp this conflict.
But at the same time I understand that also the board is considered
untrusted by the community, so I agree that any audit will be considered
invalid by every parties. In computer science this may be called
"starvation condition"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_(computer_science)). A good
governance, like a good algorithm, should avoid it.
The biggest problem of starvation is not the condition itself, which can
be blocked somehow, but the most strange solution that people would use
to solve it. Someone would unplug the power and to reset the system,
someone would burn the system and someone would simple wait that the
system will solve the starvation by itself.
At that point the FDC has taken the best decision, IMHO, like an
external party, can unblock the starvation.
Another solution is the General Assembly, but personally I think that
the silent crowd will be the most representative party in this question
and in general the silent crowd will take always the most moderate
position. I don't see so much moderated position to attract more consent.
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 12:03, Gilles Chagnon wrote:
I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no
report to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations
and a series of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result
was shared outside of the board/the direction. I can understand that
some points may be confidential, but I also think that some
conclusions could have been shared, provided the auditing organism had
been told to write their conclusion in a suitable way.
G. Chagnon
Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the
most appropriate solution.
It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be
interesting to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and
another by the FDC.
The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too,
defining the auditing entity.
Kind regards
--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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>
