How is that a conflict of interest?
On Feb 20, 2013 1:44 PM, "John Vandenberg" <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey
<andrewrturvey(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
> I presume this decision was taken at the last
board meeting on 9-10
> February. It's very disappointing that the draft minutes of the last
board
> meeting still haven't been published, a
week and a half after the
meeting. I
> asked when this would be published over a
week ago and was told that a
> reasonably final draft was available on Sunday. Chapter policy says that
> "Volunteers are encouraged to ... hold the Trustees and staff to
account,
> through public and private discussion".
[2] It's impossible to do this
if
> we're not even allowed to see on a timely
basis the decisions that are
being
made by
the board.
Publishing draft minutes is quite unusual for a board - most I'm aware
of don't publish minutes until they are formally approved at the next
meeting (which can be months later) - so I'm not sure a week and a
half really qualifies as untimely. I doubt the minutes say much, any
way. The discussion was presumably in camera, so there will just be
the final decision in the public minutes and we've already been told
about that.
The minutes will, or should, note if there were any conflicts of
interest. e.g. *if* Greyham applied due to the direct personal
approaches, that should be noted.
--
John Vandenberg
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org