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

Patricio Lorente patricio.lorente at gmail.com
Sat Jun 1 21:23:47 UTC 2013

Hi, Lodewijk!

2013/6/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk en effeietsanders.org>:
> 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.

The answer comes from the Board representatives at the FDC but
obviously it reflects an ongoing discussion of the full Board. I agree
with you that the framework should be clearer at this point, and we
(in this case "we" means Board and staff) will work to make it more
> 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.

Yes, you are right, and perhaps that is my fault. I thought that
anyone who was following this issue would know that report in advance.
Thanks for pointing that out.


Patricio Lorente
Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar
Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente

More information about the Wikimedia-l mailing list