How is that a conflict of interest? On Feb 20, 2013 1:44 PM, "John Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 February 2013 11:17, Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com
wrote:
I presume this decision was taken at the last board meeting on 9-10 February. It's very disappointing that the draft minutes of the last
board
meeting still haven't been published, a week and a half after the
meeting. I
asked when this would be published over a week ago and was told that a reasonably final draft was available on Sunday. Chapter policy says that "Volunteers are encouraged to ... hold the Trustees and staff to
account,
through public and private discussion". [2] It's impossible to do this
if
we're not even allowed to see on a timely basis the decisions that are
being
made by the board.
Publishing draft minutes is quite unusual for a board - most I'm aware of don't publish minutes until they are formally approved at the next meeting (which can be months later) - so I'm not sure a week and a half really qualifies as untimely. I doubt the minutes say much, any way. The discussion was presumably in camera, so there will just be the final decision in the public minutes and we've already been told about that.
The minutes will, or should, note if there were any conflicts of interest. e.g. *if* Greyham applied due to the direct personal approaches, that should be noted.
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org