[Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Risker]

Where does the Board Audit Committee fit into this?


Risker


On 22 October 2013 07:00, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl> wrote:

> hello,
>
> below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds
> Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate
> in the FDC process.
>
> A little background:
>
> In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013
> budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its
> current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of
> that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and
> after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither
> by the FDC nor by WMF.
>
> In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014
> should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat
> to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC
> should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF
> budget for 2014-2015.
>
> After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key
> stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position
> regarding WMF participation in FDC process.
>
>
> best,
>
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM
> Subject: WMF in FDC process
> To: Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Dear Sue,
>
> I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the
> FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on
> the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending
> cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing
> to specific areas, when appropriate).
>
> The advantages of the approach are numerous:
>
>    - It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated,
>    - It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested
>    in,
>    - It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more
>    decision power and influence,
>    - It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in
>    an organized review if the WMF budget.
>
> The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a
> special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot
> of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically
> for the FDC process).
>
> We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for
> application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline
> shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April
> submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in
> Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them.
>
> best,
>
>
> on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>