Ilario, 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.
Andreas [1] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/review-urges-major-overhaul-governance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282 On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> 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" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki > /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 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > > --- > Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast > antivirus. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
