I meant User:Varnent. :) I blame the turkey chemicals. :p
-greg (User:Varnent) > On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Gregory Varnum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Personally - I favor third party and community review to a committee of the > board - unless the entire board is on that committee along with some skilled > community members. > > IMHO, all of the tasks Pine mentioned the board members on the committee > should do are things I would hope all the board members are doing. Their > primary legal responsibility is financial oversight of the organization. I > would hope they are making VERY informed financial decisions, and that they > are all actively engaged in the process. Frankly, if they are not spending > that time as a group, I would much rather they find a way they do that as a > whole group rather than create a committee where only a few of them are doing > their their colleague’s due diligence for them. > > -greg (User:Pine) > >> On Nov 27, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Lila Tretikov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> One of the things proposed during our FDC conversation was a 3rd party >> review of the WMF annual plan. This could avoid the "circular" nature of >> Board->FDC->WMF and also provide us with another perspective from an >> organization that has a similar scale. >> >> Lila >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps there should be a new Budget Committee of the board, with a >>> similar >>>> composition to the Audit Committee in that the membership would include >>>> some WMF board members and some community members. The Budget Committee >>>> could do FDC-like reviews of WMF's Annual Plan proposals each year. >>>> >>> >>> It is an idea worth considering, but setting up yet another committee gives >>> me goosebumps... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I personally would prefer to avoid the "core" and "non-core" division of >>>> the WMF budget, since I feel that the whole budget and the performance of >>>> the whole organization should be reviewed at least annually. The Budget >>>> Committee could look at the big picture in more depth than the Board as a >>>> whole and the FDC would have the time to do. >>>> >>> >>> I understand this view. My concerns are related to scale (the most common >>> FDC applicant has a budget 1000 smaller than the WMF), FDC's competence to >>> review such budgets with the same professionalism in a highly limited time, >>> and also mixing the cashflows (after all, the FDC's allocation is also part >>> of WMF's budget), but these issues can probably be addressed somehow. >>> >>> In general, I strongly believe that the WMF should lead by example - it >>> will be much easier for other organizations to prepare strategy, goals, >>> budgets, plans, etc., if they have a clear good example set by the WMF. >>> >>> Dariusz >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>> [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >>> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
