Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2013/Candidates/id

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of the page Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2013/Candidates and the translation is 5% complete.

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

The results were announced on 24 June 2013.

Bantu terjemahkan pemilihan.
Other languages:
বাংলা • ‎Deutsch • ‎Ελληνικά • ‎English • ‎español • ‎euskara • ‎français • ‎Nordfriisk • ‎עברית • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎한국어 • ‎lietuvių • ‎русский • ‎српски / srpski • ‎தமிழ் • ‎Türkçe • ‎українська • ‎Tiếng Việt • ‎ייִדיש • ‎中文

Matthew Bisanz (MBisanz)

MBisanz (talk meta edits global user summary CA)

Rincian ringkasan
Matthew Bisanz, 2010
  • Pribadi:
    • Nama: Matthew Bisanz
    • Umur: 27
    • Lokasi: Washington, DC
    • Bahasa: English-N
  • Pengalaman kontribusi:
Pernyataan Hai, nama saya Matt dan saya sudah menjadi editor sejak tahun 2005, sangat aktif sejak tahun 2007. Pada waktu itu, saya sudah terlibat dengan banyak aspek dari gerakan Wikimedia, termasuk sebagai anggota Komite Audit dari Wikimedia Foundation, mantan Ketua Komite Audit Wikimedia DC, dan anggota dewan Wikimedia NYC. Saat ini saya juga menjabat dan melayani di Sub-komite Audit Wikipedia bahasa Inggris. Sebagai sebuah entitas baru dalam gerakan Wikimedia, FDC perlu mendapatkan kepercayaan masyarakat untuk beroperasi secara efektif. Ombudsman menyajikan peran kunci dalam menyediakan kajian tentang keluhan mengenai FDC. Melalui ulasan ombudsman dan investigasi, masyarakat dapat melihat keberadaan FDC berfungsi secara efektif dan bagaimana FDC dan Dewan menganggap serius dan menyelesaikan penyimpangan dari prosedur dan instruksi yang telah ditetapkan. Saya percaya pengalaman saya sebelumnya dengan gerakan dan dalam kehidupan nyata sebagai akuntan yang telah memberi saya kemampuan untuk secara efektif berfungsi sebagai ombudsman. Terima kasih untuk waktu Anda.
Pertanyaan wajib 1. Apa pengalaman Anda yang Anda pikir akan memajukan proses kerja dan pengusulan dari FDC?
1.1. Tentang mengatur dan/atau menilai program dan rencana tahunan?
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. Tentang pemberian hibah?
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. Apa yang Anda mengerti untuk menjadi peran Ombudsperson?

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. Apakah beberapa kemungkinan keluhan mengenai proses FDC yang Anda percaya dapat didokumentasikan dengan Ombudsperson, dan bagaimana Anda akan menghadapi mereka?

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 global user summary CA)

Rincian ringkasan
  • Pribadi:
    • Nama: Susana Morais
    • Umur: 34
    • Lokasi: Lisbon, Portugal
    • Bahasa: Portuguese, German, English, Spanish, a little Italian, a little French
Pernyataan 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.
Pertanyaan wajib 1. Apa pengalaman Anda yang Anda pikir akan memajukan proses kerja dan pengusulan dari FDC?
1.1. Tentang mengatur dan/atau menilai program dan rencana tahunan?
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. Tentang pemberian hibah?
I am specially experienced in the dynamics of small chapters and their need for funding, and the difficulties concerning requesting/reporting.

2. Apa yang Anda mengerti untuk menjadi peran Ombudsperson?

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. Apakah beberapa kemungkinan keluhan mengenai proses FDC yang Anda percaya dapat didokumentasikan dengan Ombudsperson, dan bagaimana Anda akan menghadapi mereka?

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.