Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Andreas Kolbe]

The minutes of the meeting on 19 September, where Roger's resignation offer
was accepted, have been online since last Saturday:

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes_19Sep12#Part_2

There are no minutes relating to any previous resignation offers I can find.

Andreas

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Gordon Joly  wrote:

> On 09/10/12 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
>> As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted,
>> but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are
>> still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)
>>
>>  My collection was that Roger Bamkin's resignation was tendered more than
> once, and hence would be in extant minutes.
>
> I have no idea where I read that, so I could be wrong.
>
> Gordo
>
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 09/10/12 12:31, Richard Symonds wrote:
As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly 
minuted, but that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in 
question are still being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)


My collection was that Roger Bamkin's resignation was tendered more than 
once, and hence would be in extant minutes.


I have no idea where I read that, so I could be wrong.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On 9 October 2012 12:31, Richard Symonds
 wrote:
> As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but
> that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still
> being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)

I think John is refering to the rejected offers, rather than the one
that was finally accepted. My understanding is that those were in
camera decisions, but perhaps now they can be released? The reasons
for keeping it in camera probably don't apply now Roger has actually
resigned.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Richard Symonds]

As far as I am aware a resignation offer has not been publicly minuted, but
that may well be because the minutes from the meeting in question are still
being drafted (and certainly haven't been approved!)

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*



On 9 October 2012 12:08, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Could someone be so kind as to answer John's question?
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?
>>
>> John Vandenberg.
>> sent from Galaxy Note
>> On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
>>
>>> For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act.
>>> On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
 >
 > Do *you* have any evidence for that?

 For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to
 anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their
 reasons.

 ___
 Wikimedia UK mailing list
 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
 http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
 WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Andreas Kolbe]

Could someone be so kind as to answer John's question?


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?
>
> John Vandenberg.
> sent from Galaxy Note
> On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
>
>> For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act.
>> On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Do *you* have any evidence for that?
>>>
>>> For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to
>>> anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[John Vandenberg]

Was this resignation offer and decision minuted publicly?

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Oct 8, 2012 6:22 PM, "James Farrar"  wrote:

> For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act.
> On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Do *you* have any evidence for that?
>>
>> For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to
>> anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their
>> reasons.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[James Farrar]

For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act.
On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
> >
> > Do *you* have any evidence for that?
>
> For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to
> anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their
> reasons.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar"  wrote:
>
> Do *you* have any evidence for that?

For their actions, or their reasons? Their actions are pretty clear to
anyone that has been following the situations. I'm speculating about their
reasons.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Roger Bamkin]

I am obviously unaware of the reasons why the board in camera rejected my
offers of resignation. However I have confidence that it was rational
rather than emotional.

On 8 October 2012 11:43, James Farrar  wrote:

> Do *you* have any evidence for that?
> On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:
>
>> It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did
>> so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably
>> thought they were just being supportive colleagues.
>> On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>>>
 On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>
>> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
>> individual,
>> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his
>> position.
>> It appears that he was protected.
>>
> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not.
> Perhaps
> it's time you shared that with us.
>

 +1

 Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
 have something to say, say it.


 - d.

>>>
>>> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
>>>
>>>
>>> Gordo
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 
Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[James Farrar]

Do *you* have any evidence for that?
On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton"  wrote:

> It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did
> so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably
> thought they were just being supportive colleagues.
> On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>>
 On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
> individual,
> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his
> position.
> It appears that he was protected.
>
 You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not.
 Perhaps
 it's time you shared that with us.

>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
>>> have something to say, say it.
>>>
>>>
>>> - d.
>>>
>>
>> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
>>
>>
>> Gordo
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 08/10/12 10:45, Thomas Dalton wrote:
It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they 
did so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they 
probably thought they were just being supportive colleagues.


Well put.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did
so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably
thought they were just being supportive colleagues.
On Oct 8, 2012 10:36 AM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

> On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>>>
 It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
 individual,
 when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his
 position.
 It appears that he was protected.

>>> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
>>> it's time you shared that with us.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
>> have something to say, say it.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>
> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?
>
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 08/10/12 10:39, David Gerard wrote:

Yes indeed. However, this does not constitute substantiating evidence
for your claim, as you have even quoted above. Do please try again.

Sorry David. I will not try again.

Many thanks for the offer.

Gordo

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[David Gerard]

On 8 October 2012 10:36, Gordon Joly  wrote:
> On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

 It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
 individual,
 when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his
 position.
 It appears that he was protected.

>>> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
>>> it's time you shared that with us.

>> +1
>> Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
>> have something to say, say it.

> Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?


Yes indeed. However, this does not constitute substantiating evidence
for your claim, as you have even quoted above. Do please try again.


- d.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 08/10/12 10:35, David Gerard wrote:

On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:

On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual,
when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position.
It appears that he was protected.

You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
it's time you shared that with us.


+1

Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
have something to say, say it.


- d.


Did the board reject Roger's resignations in the past?


Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[David Gerard]

On 8 October 2012 09:09, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

>> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual,
>> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position.
>> It appears that he was protected.

> You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
> it's time you shared that with us.


+1

Gordon, you've been called on unsubstantiated sniping before. If you
have something to say, say it.


- d.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

Have I?

Gordo

On 08/10/12 09:09, Andy Mabbett wrote:


You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. 
Perhaps it's time you shared that with us.


--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" > wrote:




It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to
consider his position. It appears that he was protected.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org 
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org



___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On being social? Should Trustees, member and the wider community be social?

I was very social with Roger Bamkin and everybody else at the AGM in 
Bristol in April (in the bar after the meeting). Many people have 
problems with being social (lack of money, social skills, phobias, being 
"cold shouldered", being forced to stay "on topic", age, being able to 
remember people's names, being able to recognise faces, people not using 
real names but odd Wikimedia aliases, etc etc).


I have been very supportive of both the London Wikimeet, although I 
would prefer an evening meeting rather than a lunchtime meeting (and 
hence my own attendance is poor). I have worked with others to promote 
"London Wiki Wednesdays", which has now died a death.


A charity and indeed any group must meet diverse needs. It is has been 
raised before that the Muslim community would be less likely to join a 
meeting in a pub.


Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 07/10/12 22:34, Roger Bamkin wrote:

Hi Gordan I thought your comment was a bit uncalled for.

Good think that I  did not make.

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Andy Mabbett]

You've obviously seen some evidence that the rest of us have not. Perhaps
it's time you shared that with us.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

>
>
> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual,
> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position.
> It appears that he was protected.
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Michael Peel]

On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:37, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin  wrote:
>> Classically the board tried to get a
>> consensus on all matters.
> 
> That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to
> make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at
> all because there isn't a consensus.

The board aims for consensus, but majority decisions do take place when they 
are needed (as the meeting minutes record).

On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:34, Roger Bamkin  wrote:


> I'm not sure that any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting

I would note that I've just got back to my computer after an afternoon meeting 
with Chris and then an evening meal with John, both of which were outside of a 
formal meeting. But I'd also note that the discussions were firmly focused on 
WMUK. I'm not too sure whether that counts as 'social' or 'informal business 
meeting' - but either way I don't think that this is something that would cause 
any problems, COI or otherwise - it's actually highly beneficial to the charity 
for this sort of discussion to take place.

Finally, I'd like to echo Tango's excellent rule of thumb, since I completely 
agree with it (and the rest of his paragraph, which I've cropped for brevity):

On 7 Oct 2012, at 19:14, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> I think there is an excellent rule of thumb: "if you feel conflicted,
> then you are". I just trust my conscience to tell me when the line has
> been crossed - if I start to feel uncomfortable, I take a step back.


Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin  wrote:
> Classically the board tried to get a
> consensus on all matters.

That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to
make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at
all because there isn't a consensus.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Roger Bamkin]

Hi Gordan I thought your comment was a bit uncalled for. I'm not sure that
any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting - ie the "mates"
idea is more imagined than real.. Classically the board tried to get a
consensus on all matters. I'm not sure that discussing a particular case is
going to move this forward so I'll leave it to you guys.

R

On 7 October 2012 21:49, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons.
> Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary.
>  On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an
>> individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider
>> his position. It appears that he was protected.
>>
>> Gordo
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 
Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons.
Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary.
On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

>
>
> It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual,
> when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position.
> It appears that he was protected.
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an 
individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to 
consider his position. It appears that he was protected.


Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 07/10/12 19:55, Thomas Dalton wrote:

Then what were you disagreeing with?
I am suggesting that Trustees should be colleagues, and not friends. 
That allows for full, frank, and professional discussion.


Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

Then what were you disagreeing with?
On Oct 7, 2012 7:47 PM, "Gordon Joly"  wrote:

> On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I
>> was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other
>> chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other
>> groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had
>> to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able
>> to do my job.
>>
>
> Sure. Difficult decisions can be taken, and friends and those who are not
> friends may be involved. I would hate to think that any board member, past,
> present and future would cast a vote based on a friendship. Sometimes you
> just have to tell a friend that they are wrong.
>
> Gordo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:

Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I
was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other
chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other
groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had
to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able
to do my job.


Sure. Difficult decisions can be taken, and friends and those who are 
not friends may be involved. I would hate to think that any board 
member, past, present and future would cast a vote based on a 
friendship. Sometimes you just have to tell a friend that they are wrong.


Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On 7 October 2012 19:26, Gordon Joly  wrote:
> On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be
>> considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!
>>
> I disagree,

Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I
was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other
chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other
groups any bodies which include people I am friends with. If I had had
to recuse myself from all those decisions, I wouldn't have been able
to do my job.

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:


Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't 
be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to 
ever act!



I disagree,

YMMV,

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Gordon Joly]

On 07/10/12 14:03, Roger Bamkin wrote:
The whole point of excluding those who have declared COI is to allow 
the other trustees to vote without influence from the excluded trustee.

But don't you all go down the pub afterwards?

Gordo


___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On 7 October 2012 18:15, Jan-bart de Vreede  wrote:
> Hey,
>
> So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right,
> friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of
> the organization first.

To me "mate" is just a colloquial synonym for "friend". Complications
of the English language aside, I'm curious what level of relationship
you think can create a conflict.

I think there is an excellent rule of thumb: "if you feel conflicted,
then you are". I just trust my conscience to tell me when the line has
been crossed - if I start to feel uncomfortable, I take a step back.
Where that line is may be different for different people, depending on
how good you are at compartmentalising (apologies to non-native
English speakers - it's probably easier for you to look that up than
for me to try to define it!). Of course, even if you are fantastic at
compartmentalising, you still need to avoid the perception of
conflicts.

The WMF's COI policy [1] has a list of relationships that create a
conflict - it's basically just family (broadly defined). There is a
catch-all clause at the end, as any such policy needs (you can't cover
every possibility in a policy), but the intention is clearly that only
very close relationships are an issue. Friendships, even very close
ones, aren't included. Even romantic relationships where you aren't
married or living together aren't included. Is your view that
relationships that create a conflict should be considered to be wider
than that policy suggests?


1. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Jan-bart de Vreede]

Hey,

So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right, 
friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of the 
organization first.

With regards to your second statement: agreed 

Jan-Bart


On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:39, Thomas Dalton  wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede"  wrote:
> > If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I 
> > would assume you would also recuse yourself...
> 
> Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be 
> considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!
> 
> If you feel unable to act appropriately in that situation, then you shouldn't 
> be a trustee of a charity.
> 

> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Morton]

Sure.

But such a situation is complicated; because the implication is that in a
private vote trustees may vote differently than in a public one, perhaps so
as not to upset their friendship (or for whatever reason). This, I suggest,
is not addressed by making such votes secret. But, under good governance,
we should make them *more public*. Because a situation where trustees may
vote one way or the other due to considerations of other trustees *rather
than consideration of the charity* should be discouraged - and if trustees
feel that way they should abstain.

Equally; someone who considers a friends position to be incorrect, but
wishes to hide that consideration to preserve the friendship is no true
friend (and vice versa). And we should not go to lengths
to accommodate them. One would feel that if they wished to vote against a
proposal they would have raised their objection with the board and the
trustee in question before it got to the point of a vote! If they haven't
then they are no longer acceptable as a trustee.

Then on top of that there is a further issue; if you are allowing secret
voting in the situations where a trustee has a COI then you create an
unfair situation. Their feelings are saved, but Joe Bloggs', a WMUK regular
and friend of board members, suggestion might be discussed and voted on in
public with the same issues.

So if you introduce this rule it would have to be for all or none.

Tom


On 7 October 2012 15:03, Roger Bamkin  wrote:

> I was only suggesting this where there was a COI. Most votes ( should be
> free and could be declared publically). I find t difficult to believe that
> anyone is going to be influenced by friendship actually - my proposal was
> designed to prevent trustees from being accused of being influenced.
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 7 October 2012 14:25, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> So I would strongly argue the other way around. Voting transparency is
>> important to ensure that the rest of the movement has insight into the
>> votes of different board members (which could influence them to select you
>> as a board member the next time around)
>>
>> If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and
>> I would assume you would also recuse yourself...
>>
>> Jan-Bart de Vreede
>> Board of Trustees
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:03, Roger Bamkin  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 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
>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia UK mailing list
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Roger Bamkin
> Victuallers Ltd
> 01332 702993
> 0758 2020815
> Google+:Victuallers
> Skype:Victuallers1
> Flickr:Victuallers2
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Katie Chan]

On 07/10/2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough wrote:

Couldn't you just say "not a good idea"?

On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote:

an absolutely horrendous proposal


I could, I didn't. I could also had said it was "a good idea" or even 
that it was "a great idea" but I didn't.


All the best to you!

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Roger Bamkin]

I was only suggesting this where there was a COI. Most votes ( should be
free and could be declared publically). I find t difficult to believe that
anyone is going to be influenced by friendship actually - my proposal was
designed to prevent trustees from being accused of being influenced.

Roger

On 7 October 2012 14:25, Jan-bart de Vreede  wrote:

> Hi
>
> So I would strongly argue the other way around. Voting transparency is
> important to ensure that the rest of the movement has insight into the
> votes of different board members (which could influence them to select you
> as a board member the next time around)
>
> If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I
> would assume you would also recuse yourself...
>
> Jan-Bart de Vreede
> Board of Trustees
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:03, Roger Bamkin  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 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
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>


-- 
Roger Bamkin
Victuallers Ltd
01332 702993
0758 2020815
Google+:Victuallers
Skype:Victuallers1
Flickr:Victuallers2
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" 
wrote:
> If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and
I would assume you would also recuse yourself...

Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be
considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act!

If you feel unable to act appropriately in that situation, then you
shouldn't be a trustee of a charity.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

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"  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 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
>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Jan-bart de Vreede]

Hi

So I would strongly argue the other way around. Voting transparency is 
important to ensure that the rest of the movement has insight into the votes of 
different board members (which could influence them to select you as a board 
member the next time around)

If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I 
would assume you would also recuse yourself...

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation



On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:03, Roger Bamkin  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  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
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Roger Bamkin]

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 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
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>



--
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Richard Farmbrough]

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
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[James Farrar]

On Oct 6, 2012 6:32 PM, "Chris Keating"  wrote:
>
> I don't know where the idea " It may also be used to ensure all trustees
vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.

I guess it means that Trustees can be bound to vote one way at a general
meeting. This doesn't immediately raise a red flag as Trustees are few and
members are many.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Katie Chan]

On 06/10/2012 18:32, Chris Keating wrote:

Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the
organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8

  I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly,
we've received advice saying that on issues like those we've been
dealing with in the last couple of weeks, we ought to minute which
trustees are in favour of, and which against, particular proposals.
(i.e. putting us more in line with the Wikimedia Foundation's practice).
I don't know where the idea " It /may/ also be used to ensure all
trustees vote the same way in a public vote" comes from.

The relevant part of the existing Trustee Code of Conduct says; "I will
participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of
the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised
to do so."


The collective decision making process in the Trustee Code of Conduct 
and CC's advice is not the same as what Fae said was being proposed. I 
can't help if trustees doesn't seems to agree on what's actually being 
proposed.


KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Thomas Dalton]

It would be good to see the actual proposal before jumping to conclusions.
Shaming somebody based on hearsay is rather unfair...
On Oct 6, 2012 5:37 PM, "Katie Chan"  wrote:

> Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current
> discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective
> responsibility[1].
>
> This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart
> of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the
> Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the
> WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This is
> nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of
> the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of
> individual trustee and damages the chapter.
>
> Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
>
> KTC
>
> [1]:  22cabinet_voting.22
> >
> [2]:  Trustees_Voting_Transparency
> >
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> - Heinrich Heine
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Chris Keating]

Katie - the trustees already have "collective responsibility" for the
organisation. See, for instance, the Charity Commission guidelines here:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc3.aspx#e8

 I am not exactly sure what Fae thinks is being proposed. Certainly, we've
received advice saying that on issues like those we've been dealing with in
the last couple of weeks, we ought to minute which trustees are in favour
of, and which against, particular proposals. (i.e. putting us more in line
with the Wikimedia Foundation's practice). I don't know where the idea " It
*may* also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public
vote" comes from.

The relevant part of the existing Trustee Code of Conduct says; "I will
participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of
the board and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to
do so."

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct (under "Meetings").

Many thanks,

Chris

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Katie Chan  wrote:

> Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current
> discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective
> responsibility[1].
>
> This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the heart
> of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the
> Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the
> WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This is
> nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the heart of
> the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce accountability of
> individual trustee and damages the chapter.
>
> Whoever proposed this, shame on you!
>
> KTC
>
> [1]:  22cabinet_voting.22
> >
> [2]:  Trustees_Voting_Transparency
> >
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> - Heinrich Heine
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

[Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

[Katie Chan]

Fae has opened a discussion on the UK wiki water cooler on a current 
discussions within WMUK Board to institute a concept of collective 
responsibility[1].


This is an absolutely horrendous proposal and goes right against the 
heart of the principles of openness and transparency which underpins the 
Wikimedia movement, and upon which Wikimedia UK was founded on. Even the 
WMF Board now list individual trustees' votes on a resolution[2]. This 
is nothing more than a half-assed attempt to hide division within the 
heart of the current board of trustees that only serve to reduce 
accountability of individual trustee and damages the chapter.


Whoever proposed this, shame on you!

KTC

[1]: 

[2]: 



--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org