[Wikimedia-l] WMF Board approves FDC's 2012-2013 Round 2 funding recommendations

[Lodewijk]

Hi Patricio,

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" in
the various occasions.

This confuses me because I understand from the descriptions on meta [1]
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 [2], but that is mostly a matter of convenience and having the
information together of course.

Best,
Lodewijk

[1]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Frequently_asked_questions#complaint
[2]:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Board_decisions/2012-2013_round2


2013/6/1 Patricio Lorente <patricio.lorente at gmail.com>

> Hi, Lodewijc!
>
> 2013/6/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>:
> [...]
> >
> > Basically my questions are:
> > * Did the board formally consider the complaints filed through this
> process
> > 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 [1].
>
> > * If yes, what was the decision on that and why was it not communicated
> in
> > the resolution?
> As you can find in our answer, we decided to support the FDC
> recommendation. There's a full explanation there about why we decided
> that way.
>
> > * Are links to the complaints intentionally made scarce on meta or is
> this
> > 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 because
> 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.
>
> Thank you,
>
>                                            Patricio
>
> [1]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2#Response_from_Board_representatives
>
>
> --
> Patricio Lorente
> Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
> Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>