Hi Gnangarra, (and a reply to one of Anders' points below) > On 3 Jun 2016, at 01:34, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have a couple of concerns, a review has the potential to stagnate the WMF > as indicated from WMConf in Berlin thats already a problem and its > impacting regular activities that take longer to organise. Traditionally > WLE offers a trip to Wikimania that fine this year as its offering Montreal > but what happens for WLE 2017 the organisors(WM Ukraine) need to decide and > submit a budget to FDC this year to cover the cost of that prize but there > is no plan.
I think you're mixing two different issues there. Wikimania plans are quite distinct from the capacity of the WMF board/senior leadership - the WMF is big enough that those are done by different people, unlike in smaller organisations where a governance review can have a much bigger impact on the amount of programmatic work that the organisation is capable of doing. > Another problem is the FDC process timeline will cripple the WMF as that > doesnt look beyond the immediate 12 months, I have no issue with funding > and activity transparency but the WMF has to be looking further advanced > then the current processes dictate. Longer term strategic plans are very important for FDC applications, but they are distinct from annual plans. As I understand it, going through the FDC process meant that WMF had to start their annual planning earlier, which is good. Thinking longer term would definitely be better, but that's a step further along than where things currently are. I don't think that any Wikimedia organisation could set detailed plans on 3-year timescales yet, which is more the norm in universities. > Also note that this money already donated to the WMF any process should > take care to ensure its not just process for process sake nor should it be > run just to give a vocal group of low-non contributory complainants power > over the WMF. Definitely - but an investment in the process now to ensure better governance is much better than extra costs due to poor governance further down the line. > On 3 June 2016 at 03:19, Anders Wennersten <m...@anderswennersten.se> wrote: >> >> 3.The composition of the Board, mandates given to members of the Board and >> by whom, formal relation between the Board and the stakeholders of our >> movement, is a complete mess. And an audit would only be able to state >> this, not how it ought to be resolved. I would hope that a review would be a review, not an audit, i.e. it would look at options for improving matters, not just saying what the current situation is. This was the case for WMUK, and was done by looking at external best practices, and by interviewing other stakeholders in the organisation. Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
