thank you for your quick reply.
I checked the link you provided, and I understood that to be a message on
behalf of the two board observers, not so much the outcome of a discussion
of the full board. But maybe that is my mistake, and this message was
indeed after discussion of the full board, made on behalf of the full
board. Basically, I'm trying to understand a little better who's "we"
the various occasions.
This confuses me because I understand from the descriptions on meta 
that the report of the ombudsperson is supposed to be presented to the
(full) board together with the FDC recommendation, which suggests to me
that it would be considered at the same time as well, rather than by the
board observers/representatives themselves. From your answer to the first
question this isn't entirely clear - I hope you can clarify.
I hope you will understand that this is not so much to frustrate the
process or change the outcome (I doubt it would have an impact), but to
clarify the process for the future, and clarify who exactly makes what
decision and based on what. In my understanding it would be the full board
(through its 31 May resolution) to decide on the way the appeal is
responded to formally, and not the two board representatives.
If the appeal report was part of the considerations of the board, it would
have made sense to me to refer to it in the resolution. Also it would make
sense to me if there was a link tot he appeal and the report following that
appeal on , but that is mostly a matter of convenience and having the
information together of course.
2013/6/1 Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente(a)gmail.com>
2013/6/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>rg>:
Basically my questions are:
* Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this
or does that process stop at the ombudsperson?
Yes, in fact the Board representatives at the FDC posted a formal
answer after receiving the ombudsperson report .
* If yes, what was the decision on that and why
was it not communicated
As you can find in our
answer, we decided to support the FDC
recommendation. There's a full explanation there about why we decided
* Are links to the complaints intentionally made
scarce on meta or is
an oversight for example because this is the
first time such complaints
have been filed?
As with the previous question, I think you are making this one
you missed our formal answer to the complaint, which, by the way, was
inmediately communicated to the Chapter's representatives. But anyway,
if you have any idea that could improve the whole process, we will be
happy to consider it.
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
Wikimedia-l mailing list