Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective responsibility[1].
This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter.
Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
KTC
[1]: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Trustees_and_.22cabinet_voting.22 [2]: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8
I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly, we've received advice saying that on issues like those we've been dealing with in the last couple of weeks, we ought to minute which trustees are in favour of, and which against, particular proposals. (i.e. putting us more in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's practice). I don't know where the idea " It *may* also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.
The relevant part of the existing Trustee Code of Conduct says; "I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so."
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct (under "Meetings").
Many thanks,
Chris
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective responsibility[1].
This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter.
Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
KTC
22cabinet_voting.22http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Trustees_and_.22cabinet_voting.22
Trustees_Voting_Transparencyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
______________________________**_________________ 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
On 06/10/2012 18:32, Chris Keating wrote:
Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8
I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly, we've received advice saying that on issues like those we've been dealing with in the last couple of weeks, we ought to minute which trustees are in favour of, and which against, particular proposals. (i.e. putting us more in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's practice). I don't know where the idea " It /may/ also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.
The relevant part of the existing Trustee Code of Conduct says; "I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so."
The collective decision making process in the Trustee Code of Conduct and CC's advice is not the same as what Fae said was being proposed. I can't help if trustees doesn't seems to agree on what's actually being proposed.
KTC
On Oct 6, 2012 6:32 PM, "Chris Keating" chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know where the idea " It may also be used to ensure all trustees
vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.
I guess it means that Trustees can be bound to vote one way at a general meeting. This doesn't immediately raise a red flag as Trustees are few and members are many.
It would be good to see the actual proposal before jumping to conclusions. Shaming somebody based on hearsay is rather unfair... On Oct 6, 2012 5:37 PM, "Katie Chan" ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective responsibility[1].
This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter.
Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
KTC
22cabinet_voting.22http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#Trustees_and_.22cabinet_voting.22
Trustees_Voting_Transparencyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine
______________________________**_________________ 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
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
--
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.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
On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and
I would assume you would also recuse yourself...
Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!
If you feel unable to act appropriately in that situation, then you shouldn't be a trustee of a charity.
Hey,
So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right, friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of the organization first.
With regards to your second statement: agreed
Jan-Bart
On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:39, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I would assume you would also recuse yourself...
Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!
If you feel unable to act appropriately in that situation, then you shouldn't be a trustee of a charity.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 7 October 2012 18:15, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey,
So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right, friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of the organization first.
To me "mate" is just a colloquial synonym for "friend". Complications of the English language aside, I'm curious what level of relationship you think can create a conflict.
I think there is an excellent rule of thumb: "if you feel conflicted, then you are". I just trust my conscience to tell me when the line has been crossed - if I start to feel uncomfortable, I take a step back. Where that line is may be different for different people, depending on how good you are at compartmentalising (apologies to non-native English speakers - it's probably easier for you to look that up than for me to try to define it!). Of course, even if you are fantastic at compartmentalising, you still need to avoid the perception of conflicts.
The WMF's COI policy [1] has a list of relationships that create a conflict - it's basically just family (broadly defined). There is a catch-all clause at the end, as any such policy needs (you can't cover every possibility in a policy), but the intention is clearly that only very close relationships are an issue. Friendships, even very close ones, aren't included. Even romantic relationships where you aren't married or living together aren't included. Is your view that relationships that create a conflict should be considered to be wider than that policy suggests?
1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy
On 7 October 2012 19:26, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!
I disagree,
Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able to do my job.
On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able to do my job.
Sure. Difficult decisions can be taken, and friends and those who are not friends may be involved. I would hate to think that any board member, past, present and future would cast a vote based on a friendship. Sometimes you just have to tell a friend that they are wrong.
Gordo
Then what were you disagreeing with? On Oct 7, 2012 7:47 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able to do my job.
Sure. Difficult decisions can be taken, and friends and those who are not friends may be involved. I would hate to think that any board member, past, present and future would cast a vote based on a friendship. Sometimes you just have to tell a friend that they are wrong.
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
Gordo
People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons. Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary. On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
Hi Gordan I thought your comment was a bit uncalled for. I'm not sure that any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting - ie the "mates" idea is more imagined than real.. Classically the board tried to get a consensus on all matters. I'm not sure that discussing a particular case is going to move this forward so I'll leave it to you guys.
R
On 7 October 2012 21:49, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons. Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary. On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Classically the board tried to get a consensus on all matters.
That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at all because there isn't a consensus.
On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
Classically the board tried to get a consensus on all matters.
That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at all because there isn't a consensus.
The board aims for consensus, but majority decisions do take place when they are needed (as the meeting minutes record).
On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Roger Bamkin victuallers@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting
I would note that I've just got back to my computer after an afternoon meeting with Chris and then an evening meal with John, both of which were outside of a formal meeting. But I'd also note that the discussions were firmly focused on WMUK. I'm not too sure whether that counts as 'social' or 'informal business meeting' - but either way I don't think that this is something that would cause any problems, COI or otherwise - it's actually highly beneficial to the charity for this sort of discussion to take place.
Finally, I'd like to echo Tango's excellent rule of thumb, since I completely agree with it (and the rest of his paragraph, which I've cropped for brevity):
On 7 Oct 2012, at 19:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is an excellent rule of thumb: "if you feel conflicted, then you are". I just trust my conscience to tell me when the line has been crossed - if I start to feel uncomfortable, I take a step back.
Thanks, Mike
On being social? Should Trustees, member and the wider community be social?
I was very social with Roger Bamkin and everybody else at the AGM in Bristol in April (in the bar after the meeting). Many people have problems with being social (lack of money, social skills, phobias, being "cold shouldered", being forced to stay "on topic", age, being able to remember people's names, being able to recognise faces, people not using real names but odd Wikimedia aliases, etc etc).
I have been very supportive of both the London Wikimeet, although I would prefer an evening meeting rather than a lunchtime meeting (and hence my own attendance is poor). I have worked with others to promote "London Wiki Wednesdays", which has now died a death.
A charity and indeed any group must meet diverse needs. It is has been raised before that the Muslim community would be less likely to join a meeting in a pub.
Gordo
Clearly there is a risk of conflicts of interest with trustees making decisions re grant applications from people who they know and especially if those people are their friends, foes, lovers or former lovers. But in a relatively small community it is difficult to set up processes that let trustees be trustees without having people decide on their friends' applications for grants and expenses.
Difficult, but necessary and not impossible. I would suggest trying out some or all of the following tried and trusted techniques:
1. 7 is a small board, it should be perfectly possible to have a larger board with three "independents" perhaps recruited from non-editing donors. Those three could then constitute a small grants panel with delegated authority to decide which individuals get certain sums that the whole board has budgeted for and set the criteria for. 2. Delegate some of the individual decisions to officers. So the Board decides how much money to spend on sending people to Wikimania and what criteria the officers should look for, and the staff then decide who gets the grants. 3. Anonymise/pseudonymise the grant applications. In some circumstances it should be possible for the board to consider applications and proposals with the applicant's identity redacted. Of course there would still be times when a board member recuses because they recognise the application as one that a friend discussed with them at a meetup. It might sometimes also be appropriate for the officers to add that the particular applicant had a successful or unsuccessful previous record of delivering similar projects. 4. Have people recuse from decisions where they know that their lovers, close friends or indeed enemies are applicants. Friendship is a difficult thing to define and something of a sliding scale from an acquaintance whose application you could consider dispassionately to a close friend where you know you can't be neutral. I agree that Tango's test is a good one - if you know you are conflicted then you are. But you also need to consider the proverbial passenger on the Clapham Omnibus, and all trustees need to regularly ask themselves, "would a reasonable person think that I had a conflict of interest?".
WSC
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
Have I?
Gordo
On 08/10/12 09:09, Andy Mabbett wrote:
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" <gordon.joly@pobox.com mailto:gordon.joly@pobox.com> wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected. Gordo _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org <mailto: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
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Gordo
On 8 October 2012 10:36, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1 Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Yes indeed. However, this does not constitute substantiating evidence for your claim, as you have even quoted above. Do please try again.
- d.
It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues. On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
Do *you* have any evidence for that? On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues. On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
I am obviously unaware of the reasons why the board in camera rejected my offers of resignation. However I have confidence that it was rational rather than emotional.
On 8 October 2012 11:43, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that? On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues. On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected.
You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.
+1
Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you have something to say, say it.
- d.
Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that?
For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons.
For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that?
For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that?
For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons.
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
Could someone be so kind as to answer John's question?
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that?
For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons.
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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 9 October 2012 12:08, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Could someone be so kind as to answer John's question?
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Do *you* have any evidence for that?
For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their reasons.
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
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
On 9 October 2012 12:31, Richard Symonds richard.symonds@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)
I think John is refering to the rejected offers, rather than the one that was finally accepted. My understanding is that those were in camera decisions, but perhaps now they can be released? The reasons for keeping it in camera probably don't apply now Roger has actually resigned.
On 09/10/12 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote:
As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)
My collection was that Roger Bamkin's resignation was tendered more than once, and hence would be in extant minutes.
I have no idea where I read that, so I could be wrong.
Gordo
The minutes of the meeting on 19 September, where Roger's resignation offer was accepted, have been online since last Saturday:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_19Sep12#Part_2
There are no minutes relating to any previous resignation offers I can find.
Andreas
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 09/10/12 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote:
As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)
My collection was that Roger Bamkin's resignation was tendered more than
once, and hence would be in extant minutes.
I have no idea where I read that, so I could be wrong.
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ 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
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
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.
Roger
On 7 October 2012 14:25, Jan-bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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
-- 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
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
On 07/10/2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough wrote:
Couldn't you just say "not a good idea"?
On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote:
an absolutely horrendous proposal
I could, I didn't. I could also had said it was "a good idea" or even that it was "a great idea" but I didn't.
All the best to you!
KTC
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org