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(a)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(a)farmbrough.co.uk>wrote;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(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w…
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org