Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33:
From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or
chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community
member, I tend to see the WMF as "special"
Note that I wasn't saying it isn't "special" in some way, I was just
saying that *t
Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from
it.
I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a
little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the
FDC.
Kind regards
Ziko
Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb Dariu
On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative
of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within th
hi Theo,
Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
> as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
> footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
> concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF b
Hi Nemo
I'll get straight to my point here before answering in-line. I see this as
yet another move to change or one-up the power structures at play here. WMF
created this FDC to evaluate chapter finances, FDC is still limited in what
they believe is their scope, WMF still has a great deal of cont
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that
circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as ch
This seems like a preposterous proposition, if not for the distinct
recollection that this might have been insinuated by Ms. Gardner in the
discussion leading up to the formation of FDC. It still reads like a poorly
thought out attempt at some form of a coup or the making of one. This is as
bad an
Dear Dariusz,
dear other FDC members,
thanks for your brave and necessary step.
Best
Cornelius
Cornelius Kibelka
Twitter: @jaancornelius
Mobile:+258-84-4260524 (Vodacom MZ)
German number currently offline
On 22 October 2013 13:00, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> hello,
>
> below I'm copy
hi Nathan,
I'm not saying that the problems you're pointing out are non-existent.
Rather, I'd say that they are likely unavoidable. I'm not certain about
Western Europeans' solidarity anyway - I have serious doubts if any of the
Western European FDC members would have any preference for other West
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>
>
> I have no idea what gave you this impression. The FDC is composed of
> Wikimedia volunteers and serves as an advisory committee by the Board. The
> Board itself is not the foundation, neither - it is a body overseeing and
> supervis
hi Nathan,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority
> of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with
> having it purport to "review" the Foundation's spending and activity.
> If the Foundation's B
Actually, I'd say that the opportunity for conflict of interest is
extremely high, and there's pretty much no way that the FDC can make
recommendations on the overall budget (and the very sizeable portion of
said budget that is largely dispensed based on their recommendation)
without crossing the l
Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a
conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore
the FDC's recommendation altogether and award itself an unreasonably
generous budget. However, from last year's experience, where the WMF plan
was
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to
> finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's
> budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest
> of move
Hi,
I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to
finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's
budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest
of movement spending is subjected to. I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to
Where does the Board Audit Committee fit into this?
Risker
On 22 October 2013 07:00, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> hello,
>
> below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds
> Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate
> in the FDC proces
hello,
below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds
Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate
in the FDC process.
A little background:
In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013
budget as its proposal to the
17 matches
Mail list logo
