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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21:
> I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the
> larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
> were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that
> circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being
> representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like
> gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community
> of all.
>
> Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual
> community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its
> formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go
> around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and
> comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have
> even played a part in.......whatever this is.

I'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do 
such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, 
how do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared 
to the other entities' funding?

>
> I also don't understand why FDC alone should have this right to evaluate
> and offer recommendations. Why not the GAC? Arbcomm? or even individuals,
> like Risker or Nathan, heck, even my cat should have that right! There is
> an Auditcomm kicking around still I think. There is also some conflation in
> the comments over how much authority FDC is looking for- is it to merely
> offer feedback, suggest increases /decreases - which like feedback, WMF can
> reject at will or the authority to go head-to-head with the board, as the
> following comments allude to. The latter is quite preposterous, the former
> not so much. I suppose sharing the plan with everyone openly, and letting
> everyone comment might be the quickest solution there.
>
> Anyway, of the dozen reasons why this is a bad idea here are a few-
>
> -The internal structure - the foundation recently built up and then
> expanded a grants department, added to the internal finance department
> including some global work, the executive leadership - it would make
> somethings redundant, making a whole lot of resources so far wasted.
> -The external structure - hierarchy between the board, WMF executives, the
> FDC, auditcommittee, the FDC steering committee (if it's still around), not
> to mention the external auditors and consultants. Issues of privacy and
> control are likely to arise.
> -FDC has no real world existence - in the legal sense. There are legal and
> fiduciary responsibilities a board and executives have, real world laws
> about compliance, contracts, hiring and so on - they can't be abandoned or
> handed over to a completely virtual entity with little prior experience,
> who live across the world.

Correct. They can't. :)
As you say, the FDC's decisions don't exist in the "real world", before 
the WMF board approves them. Nothing happens, from a legal perspective. 
For a "conflict" to exist, you'd need a board resolution rescinding a 
previous board resolution (which happens all the time anyway).

> -The scale is quite relevant here- the chapters have less than a tenth of
> the revenue and access to those fundraising abilities as the WMF. They have
> no engineering department, some are starting to hire their first employee
> and rent an office.
> -WMF and the board, proposed and created the FDC. They set up a steering
> committee, dedicated staff, and provided things like the travel budget to
> get these members under one roof to actually have, an actual FDC. The board
> has representatives who don't vote present within FDC. But it still poses a
> whole lot of issues about conflict that might have legal repercussions for
> non-profit operating in the US.
> -As Nathan pointed out, the FDC has very limited exposure to US laws and
> little participation from the US, and by extension the English-speaking
> majority. Majority of the members also have little exposure to the
> "flagship" project, presenting a gap of expertise and relevance where it
> would be needed the most.

Again, I can't imagine any legal consequence. Moreover, if it's so true 
that FDC lacks an USA-centric know-how particularly needed by and 
abundant in the WMF (and viceversa), all the better! It would mean 
they'll complement each other rather than overlapping as you feared 
above, wouldn't it.

Nemo