I imagine this being carried out by a subcommittee of the Audit Committee, as the work required seems similar. Thoughts from ChapCom members?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Chapter_assessment
SJ
I've been thinking about this, and some of the issues are imho too detailed and formalized - I am not sure if we should pull it that far. I think it would be helpful to put this forward at the internal mailing list and see some responses there?
I do not think that the audit committee would be the right group to conduct this. I am very much in favor of a peers evaluation (as we discussed before) because that gives less stress, and more understanding. This should also make it look less hostile. This could be part of Chapcom New Style (if re-arranged into a two tier committee for example) or a totally new thing - that is secondary.
Best, Lodewijk
2011/7/6 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
I imagine this being carried out by a subcommittee of the Audit Committee, as the work required seems similar. Thoughts from ChapCom members?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Chapter_assessment
SJ
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi
After the past discussions, this seems to be something that comes up more and more often. As it currently stands, there is a gap between what Chapcom does and what happens after a Chapter's approval. There is a need for a peer-review body/system that can function/support and also hold a chapter accountable, provide support, audit and if need be, take actions to protect the rest of the movement. Let me clarify, I mean this in a democratic sense, and not in an authoritative manner where this body would be elected and composed of different chapter members every year.
I hope we can consider such an elected body composed of different chapters. I don't think an audit subcommittee would be able to provide the sort of reach that is needed here, though I see some wisdom in having an audit body itself. I would be in the interest of an elected body that might provide a comprehensive solution to chapter's need, as we expand.
Jon suggested a peer-review system in Berlin and other discussions. I don't recall any valid argument, why this is still not a good direction to consider.
Theo
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I've been thinking about this, and some of the issues are imho too detailed and formalized - I am not sure if we should pull it that far. I think it would be helpful to put this forward at the internal mailing list and see some responses there?
I do not think that the audit committee would be the right group to conduct this. I am very much in favor of a peers evaluation (as we discussed before) because that gives less stress, and more understanding. This should also make it look less hostile. This could be part of Chapcom New Style (if re-arranged into a two tier committee for example) or a totally new thing - that is secondary.
Best, Lodewijk
2011/7/6 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
I imagine this being carried out by a subcommittee of the Audit Committee, as the work required seems similar. Thoughts from ChapCom members?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Chapter_assessment
SJ
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Peer review and audit are different and can be complementary. Peer review is great for helping peers do better: meeting goals, best practices, etc. Audit is to more to minimize risk: rules followed, money in the right place, etc.
Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On 2011 Jul 7, at 1:56 , Theo10011 wrote:
Hi
After the past discussions, this seems to be something that comes up more and more often. As it currently stands, there is a gap between what Chapcom does and what happens after a Chapter's approval. There is a need for a peer-review body/system that can function/support and also hold a chapter accountable, provide support, audit and if need be, take actions to protect the rest of the movement. Let me clarify, I mean this in a democratic sense, and not in an authoritative manner where this body would be elected and composed of different chapter members every year.
I hope we can consider such an elected body composed of different chapters. I don't think an audit subcommittee would be able to provide the sort of reach that is needed here, though I see some wisdom in having an audit body itself. I would be in the interest of an elected body that might provide a comprehensive solution to chapter's need, as we expand.
Jon suggested a peer-review system in Berlin and other discussions. I don't recall any valid argument, why this is still not a good direction to consider.
Theo
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote: I've been thinking about this, and some of the issues are imho too detailed and formalized - I am not sure if we should pull it that far. I think it would be helpful to put this forward at the internal mailing list and see some responses there?
I do not think that the audit committee would be the right group to conduct this. I am very much in favor of a peers evaluation (as we discussed before) because that gives less stress, and more understanding. This should also make it look less hostile. This could be part of Chapcom New Style (if re-arranged into a two tier committee for example) or a totally new thing - that is secondary.
Best, Lodewijk
2011/7/6 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com I imagine this being carried out by a subcommittee of the Audit Committee, as the work required seems similar. Thoughts from ChapCom members?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Chapter_assessment
SJ
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I've been thinking about this, and some of the issues are imho too detailed and formalized - I am not sure if we should pull it that far.
Can you be more specific in comments on that page?
I think it would be helpful to put this forward at the internal mailing list and see some responses there?
Good idea.
I do not think that the audit committee would be the right group to conduct this. I am very much in favor of a peers evaluation (as we discussed before) because that gives less stress, and more understanding. This should also make it look less hostile. This could be part of Chapcom New Style (if re-arranged into a two tier committee for example) or a totally new thing - that is secondary.
We can describe it as a totally new thing, and figure out whether it works as a subcommittee of an existing group later. Language and wording should make it clear that this group would play a supporting role (just as the WMF audit committee supports the WMF).
SJ
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org