[Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012

[MZMcBride]

Michael Peel wrote:
> On voting transparency: this is a great step forward. However, I would
> encourage the WMF to take a further step, and to explain why trustees voted
> approve/abstain/against. This could potentially be done by (for examples)
> adding notes next to votes explaining reservations or key supporting factors,
> or by making resolutions more focused (e.g. the fundraising decision could
> have been split into four: principles, chapter payment processing, four
> chapters, and additional chapters, which would have provided more insight
> here).

I agree that attaching names to the votes is a step in the right direction.
Good job, Board. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with encouraging Board members to explain their votes,
though. I think the idea deserves further thought and consideration. Perhaps
there would be more value to doing so than I anticipate. Personally, I think
having Board members respond to direct follow-up questions regarding
specific votes that community members are interested in (on the mailing list
or on Meta-Wiki) would be more useful.

MZMcBride