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 <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
