On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For historical reference: I felt that WMF made
significant progress with
the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review.
I agree that there was a good trend that got reverted, as a result of
dropping the core/non-core distinction. It would be good in there was a
significant part of what WMF does (in particular, in the area of new
initiatives, innovation, non-core activities) that'd would be evaluated by
the FDC. There are many benefits: the ability to lead by example to other
organizations in the movement, more transparency, more qualitative feedback
from the community (the FDC is an expert, yet community-driven body, able
to dig into more details than a general online discussion), less perception
of unequal treatment, etc. In the same time, there are serious
considerations: how large a budget can be for the FDC to still be able to
handle it professionally? Should the standards be the same for large
organizations (WMF and WMDE) and the medium ones? Can the FDC handle WMF
budget in their current rounds schedule?
I hope we will be able to carry on a meaningful conversation about this,
naturally involving WMF executive team, the FDC itself, and so on (in fact,
we have been discussing the issues pointed above, to find solutions).
Dariusz Jemielniak "pundit"