Hi All, response in lines: Dnia 4 sierpnia 2017 12:08 Gilles Chagnon
<contact(a)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