[Foundation-l] resolution on voting transparency

[John Vandenberg]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:19 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the
>> community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss,
>> and in such situations it is much easier for the "losing" side in the
>> community if they can see that their voice was heard on the board, as
>> opposed to the board appearing to make a monolithic decision. In the
>> current arrangements it can sometimes seem that the community is divided
>> and the board is on one side of that divide. It will be much healthier for
>> the movement if the board takes a majority decision in scenarios where the
>> community is divided.
>> Sometimes it may even be worthwhile to record why the board minority
>> dissented.
>
>
> Yes. This will also avoid, as recently, board members appearing to
> later disclaim actions (a vote) that they were in fact responsible for
> taking.

It's worth recalling that for the majority of 2008-2009 the board did
record all votes, and often noted who moved the motion, but the
practise was dropped.  Its great to see it is now mandatory.

--
John Vandenberg