On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Michael Peel <michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk >> wrote: > >> On voting transparency: this is a great step forward. However, I would >> encourage the WMF to take a further step, and to explain why trustees voted >> approve/abstain/against. This could potentially be done by (for examples) >> adding notes next to votes explaining reservations or key supporting >> factors, or by making resolutions more focused (e.g. the fundraising >> decision could have been split into four: principles, chapter payment >> processing, four chapters, and additional chapters, which would have >> provided more insight here). > > > Agreed. I'm really glad to see the individual voting on those resolution. I > would love to know more about the mind-set as well, it seems like a > reasonable request. > > This helps explain the current mentality and stances within the board. I > had a couple of wrong impressions about the current trustee stances before > seeing the individual votes, this helps clear things up. My thanks to Sj > for being alone in opposing this, now I'm curious about the abstains; back > to conjecturing, I suppose.
I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the board. If not, then the board should put in place procedures to prevent abuse of abstains. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l