Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2013/Candidates

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Info The election ended 22 June 2013. No more votes will be accepted.

The results were announced on 24 June 2013.

Help translate the election.
Other languages:
বাংলা 50% • ‎Deutsch 100% • ‎Ελληνικά 35% • ‎English 100% • ‎español 100% • ‎euskara 40% • ‎français 100% • ‎Nordfriisk 5% • ‎עברית 35% • ‎Bahasa Indonesia 5% • ‎italiano 55% • ‎日本語 50% • ‎한국어 5% • ‎lietuvių 15% • ‎русский 15% • ‎српски / srpski 40% • ‎தமிழ் 30% • ‎Türkçe 20% • ‎українська 100% • ‎Tiếng Việt 45% • ‎ייִדיש 35% • ‎中文 40%


2013 WMF elections
Board elections
FDC elections
FDC Ombudsperson elections
Organization


Matthew Bisanz (MBisanz)

MBisanz (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA)

Summary details
Matthew Bisanz, 2010
  • Personal:
    • Name: Matthew Bisanz
    • Age: 27
    • Location: Washington, DC
    • Languages: English-N
Statement Hi, my name is Matt and I've been an editor since 2005, highly active since 2007. In that time, I've been involved with many facets of the Wikimedia movement, including as an Audit Committee member of the Wikimedia Foundation, former Audit Committee Chair of Wikimedia DC, and a board member of Wikimedia NYC. I'm currently also a Steward and serve on the Audit Subcommittee of the English Wikipedia. As a new entity in the Wikimedia movement, the FDC needs to gain the community's trust to operate effectively. The ombudsperson serves a key role in providing an impartial review of complaints regarding the FDC. Through ombudsperson reviews and investigations, the community can see where the FDC is functioning effectively and how the FDC and Board takes seriously and resolves deviations from stated procedures and instructions. I believe my prior experiences with the movement and in real life as a accountant have given me the skills to effectively function as ombudsperson. Thank you for your time.
Compulsory questions 1. What experiences of yours do you think will enhance the work and recommendation process of the FDC?
1.1. Around directing and/or evaluating annual plans and programs?
I am admitted as a CPA (NY) and have an MBA/graduate certificate in strategy and leadership studies. These professional qualifications will act in combination with my prior experience in grant administration in graduate school and work in various audit roles in the Wikimedia movement to help me effectively review and investigate annual plans and the processes surrounding their creation.
1.2. Around grantmaking?
I spent two years in college working in grants administration and on a research grant. I understand the need for compliance with grantmaking rules, as well as the practical complexities faced by grantees in complying with the rules. I also have worked in the tax-exempt organizations group of a large accounting firm and understand the basic principles of charitable organization operations.

2. What do you understand to be the Ombudsperson's role?

The ombudsperson serves as an impartial investigator and reviewer of the FDC process in general and of complaints other than FDC allocation recommendations in particular to help the community, Board and the FDC understand the effectiveness of the grantmaking process and to attempt to resolve disputes involving the operation of the process.

3. What are some potential complaints about the FDC process that you believe could be documented with the Ombudsperson, and how might you deal with them?

The primary types of complaints I envision involve failures to communicate between requestors and the FDC that relate to the developing nature of the grantmaking process and failures to communicate among the network of parties involved in the process (staff administering legacy grants, board members, etc.). I also see the ombudsperson providing an impartial view of the grantmaking process to (hopefully) validate community faith in the effective operation of the FDC process and provide a dedicated means of synthesizing feedback to improve the grantmaking process in the future.

Susana Morais (Lusitana)

Lusitana (talk meta edits recent edits global user summary CA)

Summary details
  • Personal:
    • Name: Susana Morais
    • Age: 34
    • Location: Lisbon, Portugal
    • Languages: Portuguese, German, English, Spanish, a little Italian, a little French
Statement I believe in the Wikimedia movement and that all the work we do has the final objective to grant every human around the world free access to the sum of all knowledge.
Compulsory questions 1. What experiences of yours do you think will enhance the work and recommendation process of the FDC?
1.1. Around directing and/or evaluating annual plans and programs?
Being a board member of Wikimedia Portugal since it's foundation has helped me understand how chapters function, and the work involved in developing programs and annual plans.
1.2. Around grantmaking?
I am specially experienced in the dynamics of small chapters and their need for funding, and the difficulties concerning requesting/reporting.

2. What do you understand to be the Ombudsperson's role?

The Ombudsperson has to document complaints, so that difficulties and problems felt by all interested parties are adressed and the process can be improved. The Ombudsperson also has to summarize annually all feedback received concerning the process (from Portal navigability to clarity in the forms, etc.). To do this a good understanding of the FDC process is required. I think it is important that all complaints are taken into account, so that the process can be transparent and trustworthy. I also believe that the Ombudsperson's role can still be improved in the future, since we all made a great deal of learning this first year.

3. What are some potential complaints about the FDC process that you believe could be documented with the Ombudsperson, and how might you deal with them?

Using as an example the complaints that were directed to me this last year (as Ombudsperson), be it a complaint about the eligibility process or about donations and fund allocations, I believe that, in case of the need for an investigation, it is important to look at the context of each complaint impartially and not deal with all complaints in a standardized fashion. It is important to gather all points of view and facts, so that the process is clear, and that we can all understand what went wrong, and how to make it better the next time.