I was only suggesting this where there was a COI. Most votes ( should be free and could be declared publically). I find t difficult to believe that anyone is going to be influenced by friendship actually - my proposal was designed to prevent trustees from being accused of being influenced.
Roger
On 7 October 2012 14:25, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi
So I would strongly argue the other way around. Voting transparency is important to ensure that the rest of the movement has insight into the votes of different board members (which could influence them to select you as a board member the next time around)
If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I would assume you would also recuse yourself...
Jan-Bart de Vreede Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:03, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that needs preserving here is not knowing who voted for what (where there is a conflict of interest). Without this then "your mate" may not feel free to vote the way that s/he thinks is good for WMUK. The whole point of excluding those who have declared COI is to allow the other trustees to vote without influence from the excluded trustee.
Roger
On 7 October 2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.ukwrote:
Couldn't you just say "not a good idea"?
On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote:
an absolutely horrendous proposal
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org