That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it is practical. I think at some point you have to trust people to be able to handle that kind of indirect conflict. People are indirectly conflicted on pretty much everything if you use a broad enough definition. Being able to handle that is a prerequisite for being a trustee. On Oct 7, 2012 2:03 PM, "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