Message: 1 Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:48:55 +0100 From: Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012 Message-ID: <CAFche1q0KhJtZK2MyPK1SsKKxK0H3EebfiAf_1uMGaCiV1tbXQ(a)mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:56 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the > >> board. If not, then the board should put in place procedures to > >> prevent abuse of abstains. > > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by "abuse of abstains"? > An abstention is a refusal to vote. By doing this, a trustee must > have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be > minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and > should be removed. I have never heard of this idea before - where did you get it from? People with votes on all kinds of bodies abstain on things all the time, for all kinds of valid reasons. The most prominent recent example I can think of is that Sivlio Berlusconi's government in Italy was brought down by MPs he expected to support him abstaining instead. We don't know why Arne and Bishakka abstained, or why SJ voted against - it is only evident they did not feel able to support the motion as it stood. Regards, Chris