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.[1] 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 <> 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" (
> /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
> antivirus.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to