I meant User:Varnent.  :)

I blame the turkey chemicals. :p

-greg (User:Varnent)

> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, 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>

Reply via email to