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 <victuall...@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 <rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> 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
