[Foundation-l] resolution on voting transparency

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi John,

Yep, that was part of our (relatively short) discussion as well. I cannot recall why we dropped it at that time, but the Board Governance Committee proposed this now as a good practice.

Jan-Bart





On 30 mrt. 2012, at 16:27, John Vandenberg wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l