Sure.
But such a situation is complicated; because the implication is that in a private vote trustees may vote differently than in a public one, perhaps so as not to upset their friendship (or for whatever reason). This, I suggest, is not addressed by making such votes secret. But, under good governance, we should make them *more public*. Because a situation where trustees may vote one way or the other due to considerations of other trustees rather than consideration of the charity should be discouraged - and if trustees feel that way they should abstain.
Equally; someone who considers a friends position to be incorrect, but wishes to hide that consideration to preserve the friendship is no true friend (and vice versa). And we should not go to lengths to accommodate them. One would feel that if they wished to vote against a proposal they would have raised their objection with the board and the trustee in question before it got to the point of a vote! If they haven't then they are no longer acceptable as a trustee.
Then on top of that there is a further issue; if you are allowing secret voting in the situations where a trustee has a COI then you create an unfair situation. Their feelings are saved, but Joe Bloggs', a WMUK regular and friend of board members, suggestion might be discussed and voted on in public with the same issues.
So if you introduce this rule it would have to be for all or none.
Tom
On 7 October 2012 15:03, Roger Bamkin
<victuallers@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
RogerOn 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
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.uk> wrote:
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-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
--
Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org