One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party
review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of
Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an
organization that has a similar scale.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W
Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of
the board, with a
composition to the Audit Committee in that the
membership would include
some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee
could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year.
It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives
I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division
the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of
the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget
Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a
whole and the FDC would have the time to do.
I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common
FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to
review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time,
and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part
of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow.
In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it
will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals,
budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: