Michael Peel 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).
I agree that attaching names to the votes is a step in the right direction. Good job, Board. :-) I'm not sure I agree with encouraging Board members to explain their votes, though. I think the idea deserves further thought and consideration. Perhaps there would be more value to doing so than I anticipate. Personally, I think having Board members respond to direct follow-up questions regarding specific votes that community members are interested in (on the mailing list or on Meta-Wiki) would be more useful. MZMcBride _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l