What is important here is that trust has to be rebuilt between the chapter members on one hand and the board & senior staff on the other hand.
The way I understand the situation is that the board has expelled a few vocal opponents, a few board members have resigned, one staffer was fired for refusing to censor a mailing list, some chapter members have had their membership renewal refused, some known contributors are not able to join the chapter, and there are now 25 new chapter members out of the blue. I may be incorrect on one or two minor details, but I think that sums it up. The board says it has had two audits already, but I believe that they are related to getting a certification - the IDEAS label - to help out with fund raising. This is not a governance audit and they will not help us find an issue to this crisis. ( http://ideas.asso.fr/fr/label/label-ideas-associations-fondations/)
I remain convinced that WMFR needs an independent governance audit, and the results should be made available to the chapter members and to the staff. Something drastic needs to be done so that this chapter can continue to function. I also think that the members who have been expelled should be allowed to rejoin the French chapter unconditionally. That is a goodwill gesture that the current board can easily make and it will go a long way towards finding a solution to this ridiculous situation.
The French press is starting to talk about what is going on at the French Wikimedia chapter, are we all waiting for CNN to come in as well? For sure that will get the WMF moving...
Best regards Gabe
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who? Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
Kind regards
On 04/08/2017 17:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
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-gov ernance-wikimedia-uk/governance/article/1170282
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@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. ChagnonLe 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/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- 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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe