Talk:Wikimedia CH/2016 Governance workshop
I find it extremeley problematic, that the same persons having been under suspiscion of a conflict of interest is the one dealing with that issue on the board. I think the previous workshop in june had a much better conclusion: we need an ombudsperson indepedant from he association proposed and validated by members of the association who are under no suspiscion of conflict of interest. We had arrived to THAT conclusion during our meeting in July 2016 and the previous board has somehow made this conclusion, which stemmed from the members disappear into thin air. I find it extremely problematic, given all the problems arounf the issues of conflict of interrest that arrose last year. --Nattes à chat (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nattes à chat: Since you have posted another message on the same topic here, to which I have replied in details, I have seen you have posted this message here too. I think it is better if we talk about the same topic on a unique page and not on multiple ones, to make sure everyone can follow the trend.
- This being said, I have to disagree with the way you present facts in your first sentence. You suggest Frédéric Schütz (who I suppose you refer to when speaking about someone "under suspiscion of a conflict of interest") is the one dealing with that issue on the board. You might have not read the WMCH board meeting minutes from June 3rd, 2016 which show the board decided to deal with the conflict of interest topic without Frédéric. The outcome is the March 2017 WMCH board resolution where we can learn the investigations regarding Frédéric's activities outside WMCH have been conducted by Dorian Credé and Martin Walder and they have found no evidence of an inappropriate action by Frédéric related to his engagement with the Racosh Sàrl company. On top of this, the board has discussed and voted several measures, in the referenced resolution, to increase transparency and Frédéric specifically abstained several times to avoid any accusation of conflict of interest. I have not seen the meeting minutes nor the resolution, which were published on the members wiki, have been disputed, discussed or commented publicly by anyone in WMCH.
- Regarding the idea of an independent ombudsperson, this is still on the table and open for a community discussion but my answer to your other message illustrates no one in WMCH showed any interest over the last 6 months to discuss this topic. I agree with you we can always do better in terms of transparency but I think it is also important all relevant facts are considered in the different interactions. Moumou82 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)