Talk:WMF Audit Committee

2010-2011

Currently this lists the 2009/10 committee, do we know who the 2011/12 committee are yet, or for that matter 2010/2011? WereSpielChequers 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See the note at the top: "for the official version of this page, see wmf:Audit committee". Cbrown1023 talk 21:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Control on non-WMF finances

I have to note that as usual the charter contains an impossible statement: «Establishes policies and procedures that ensure full transparency into the use of all donor funds raised under the Wikimedia name or on its sites, including those raised by the Foundation, the Chapters and other affiliated organization». The WMF audit committee, being a WMF committee, cannot oversee the spending of other organizations. So this impossible statement actually means that the committee will oversee the FDC criteria so that the financing of other organizations by the WMF follows strict requirements on transparency including the requests for reports etc. etc. --Nemo 09:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In one way, you are of course correct. Movement entities are independent and the Foundation (or its Audit Committee) does not have oversight over them. They can act as they please. The issue arises when those entities wish to use our movement's name, or wish to have have access to funds raised in the name of our movement. The Foundation has been entrusted with the protection of the name Wikipedia and some of the related trademarks. As a result, the Foundation has a duty to protect those trademarks. The Foundation and the Audit Committee have established a set of criteria (including transparency) around the use of movement trademarks and funds in an effort to ensure donor funds are used in a manner consistent with our movement's mission and commitments to donors. Any entity that wishes access to movement donor funds (either as a payment processor, an FDC recipient, or a grant recipient) has to meet those criteria as well as the review conducted by the FDC.Stu (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As usual, I disagree that "protecting the trademarks" gives you the right to do that – as by the way reading the trademark agreement will confirm (as such clauses have already been soundly rejected, not to mention that they are the reason why chapters like WMIT didn't sign the Grants agreement and similar subjection declarations) –.

Trademarks exist to protect the Wikimedia projects (as Mike Godwin has many times explained us), not the other way round. As for chapters, the legitimate use of the trademarks is controlled by wikimedians directly through democratic assemblies following the standards for transparency, democracy and good governance set by the bylaws written according to laws and charity registers requirements with the approval of the WMF. The control that the WMF exercises over chapters and entities, through AffCom, happens (or should happen) at another level. --Nemo 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish that were the case, but it isn't. The WMF owns and controls the trademarks. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that it owns and controls all the entities it has a trademark agreement with. I'm not aware of Orange being owned and controlled by the WMF, for instance. --Nemo 16:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the main control the WMF exercises in support of the movement is over recognition of chapters and other entities that are invited to enter into broad trademark agreements. Every central movement entity should have its own audit committee which is responsible directly for effective and transparent use of resources. A proposal: try replacing the word "ensure" with the word "guide" in the charter, where the guidance is given to the FDC as well as directly to other entities. Would that address your concern.

We do need global guidelines and principles for all groups; ideally agreed to by all current entities, however they are initially drafted. I'd like to see members from other audit committees comment here about whether they have any issues with the current policies drafted (with public input) by the WMF Audit Com.

The problem with only exercising influence through AffCom is that there is little room for subtlety there; AffCom only knows how to say "recognize" vs. "don't recognize" and is only recently starting to review the activity of recognized entities. It will take time for that body to develop more nuanced recommendations. –SJ talk  18:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see how it can "guide" anyone when it's unilateral. As for AffCom, I disagree completely: for what I remember, the ChapCom has done a lot to help chapters grow and improve, including of course addressing the issues of transparency (but this might be just a feeling?). You also ask if there's disagreement about "guidelines and principles" coming from the Audit Committee. Well, I don't remember any, is there a list? The only thing I remember is the promotion of bureaucracy and control. Could you elaborate on the concept that the Audit Committee has proved more adequate than e.g. the AffCom to provide useful guidance as opposed to black and white "in or out"? Thanks, Nemo 20:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

AffCom has become better in the past year at saying to chapters "you have a problem with X and need to address it" - for instance with Wikimedia Taiwan. AuditCom has also suggested guidelines and best practices. They complement one another. –SJ talk  18:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a critical point. The use of the name of Wikimedia is assigned by the local law as soon the association is legally recognized by the local government. The use of the logo is stated by the agreement with WMF. It means that the association Wikimedia XX may exist without WMF's Wikimedia logo. The creation of a new association Wikimedia XX probably may not be possible in some local legal systems because it would be subsequent. So I agree with you if you change with "all donor funds raised under the Wikimedia logos or on its sites". The logos belong to WMF, the names to the chapters because the name is defined in a legal document and this legal document is the bylaws and this bylaws has been registered by the local governments. --Ilario (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can invalidate someone else's trademark just by using it as the name of your company... Both the word and the logo are WMF trademarks. --Tango (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To control a global brand or trademark, you need to have a process for reviewing and approving uses of the mark -- including all organizations that operate under the mark, doing the same sort of work, or fundraising for the same sort of work. We can argue over what entity is the right one to oversee the trademarks, and what the right process for approving use of the marks is. But if we want our marks to be protected under international law, and if we want to be able to prevent "inappropriate" uses of a trademark, such a process has to be documented and followed. –SJ talk  18:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)