Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest for
a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of interest
po
Thanks WereSpeilChequers, I especially approve of "You could define a
de minimis threshold, perhaps a shareholding that pays you dividends
worth no more than a cup of coffee a month is not worth declaring. But
for simplicity and transparency it might be easier to recuse from any
decision where you
Well spotted. Expressing the amount of ownership that rises to a conflict
of interest in terms of a percentage of all shares in the company strikes
me as startlingly inappropriate.
Owning 1% of a company worth $400 billion would be a very, very significant
conflict of interest for a board member.
Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review
into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned
into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
embrace.
On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well spotted.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review
> into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned
> into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
> embrace.
I'm
I was chair of Wikimedia UK at the time of our governance review, and yes,
the circumstances were quite different.
I also think based on that experience review of WMF governance wouldn't
give the answers I think some people want to hear. In particular no
governance expert is going to do any of;
-
Chris, I agree the points you raise wouldn't matter to a governance review.
The board's handling of James's removal and their attitude toward
transparency (and the preponderance of Silicon Valley people) are matters
fou us to judge. I'd like an expert to look over the board's understanding
of and p
> I am concerned that Denny may not have been recusing from discussions and
> decisions affecting Google. This strikes me as exceptional, and that the
> board doesn't find it so troubles me, and hints that you may all have
> something to gain from independent advice.
Out of interest, do you know
Chris, there have been no resolutions since Denny assumed his seat that
impact Denny's employer, as best as I can tell, unless there is an existing
direct relationship between Google and one or both of the new trustees, and
no one's provided evidence of that. I hope Denny will recuse from any
decis
As a cross-reference it may be interesting to note here the Conflict of
Interest and Code of Conduct policies that the Wikimedia UK board
applies to its own trustees. These have recently been updated to ensure
compliance with current charity governance best practice recommendations:
Trustee C
Ok - I would be really surprised if WMF have discussed Google in their
executive sessions either - given the difficulties around staff and
strategy they probably haven't had five minutes to mention Google, even if
they wanted to. So the most economical hypothesis is that the reason Denny
hasn't rec
As a "non-technical" Wikimedian, I too would welcome a discussion,
starting with the basics, of what the project formerly known as the
"Knowledge Engine" is, or might become, and the pros and cons of the
WMF focusing major resources on it.
(Perhaps best to put have that discussion in a new thread,
12 matches
Mail list logo
