Hi All, response in lines: Dnia 4 sierpnia 2017 12:08 Gilles Chagnon <contact@gchagnon.fr> napisał(a): 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 I'd like to confirm: a proper audit includes conclusions, recommendations, deadlines etc.; making them public is worth debate but, coming from a very open chapter - I am personally in favour of openness where possible. 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. I would not call the FDC "an audit". It is an external community review of a grant application as, under present circumstances, the FDC does not have the capacity, and is not being asked, to make proper audits (which IMHO should include much more work: both deeper and wider, and IMO a site visit would be a must). At the moment the FDC members do not even participate in the regular site visits (mostly due to the budget constraints). OTOH, the FDC may be indeed one of the closest things to the actual audit that we have in the Movement. If the community wishes a stronger audit in general, or a community-supported audit, perhaps it is a good opportunity to start such a discussion. Best Regards, michał "aegis maelstrom" buczyński Vice-chair of Wikimedia Poland, FDC Member