I keep saying 14-15. The current and problematic plan is 15-16. Sorry about that.
Pine On Nov 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The public discussion on the 14-15 Annual Plan was quite limited and the Board didn't publish their deliberations, so I don't believe that the Board's current arrangement is sufficiently transparent, and without that transparency it's impossible to know how detailed their review was. In any case, the WMF published plan was far below the standard of documentation that one would expect of the largest organization in the movement, so I think that a change is in order. It sounds like there is now consensus that there should be change, which itself is progress. The nature and extent of the changes that are acutually made will tell us how serious WMF is about transparency and good governance. > > Pine > > On Nov 27, 2015 11:53 AM, "Gregory Varnum" <gregory.var...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled community members. >> >> IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing their their colleague’s due diligence for them. >> >> -greg (User:Pine) >> >> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov <l...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> > >> > One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party >> > review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of >> > Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an >> > organization that has a similar scale. >> > >> > Lila >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a >> >> similar >> >>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include >> >>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee >> >>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year. >> >>> >> >> >> >> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives >> >> me goosebumps... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of >> >>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of >> >>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget >> >>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a >> >>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do. >> >>> >> >> >> >> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common >> >> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to >> >> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, >> >> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part >> >> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow. >> >> >> >> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it >> >> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, >> >> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF. >> >> >> >> Dariusz >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
