One thing that needs preserving here is not knowing who voted for what (where there is a conflict of interest). Without this then &quot;your mate&quot; 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.<br>
<br>Roger<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 October 2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:richard@farmbrough.co.uk" target="_blank">richard@farmbrough.co.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Couldn&#39;t you just say &quot;not a good idea&quot;?<br>
<br>
On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
an absolutely horrendous proposal<br>
</blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Wikimedia UK mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l" target="_blank">http://mail.wikimedia.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l</a><br>
WMUK: <a href="http://uk.wikimedia.org" target="_blank">http://uk.wikimedia.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>--<br><br>