A few years ago, WMUK was required to undergo an independent governance
review. The review was jointly commissioned by WMUK and WMF. The results
were public. That option is available for WMFR today just as it was
available for WMUK a few years ago.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org