On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:16 AM, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to >>> make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see >>> it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because >>> they cant see *it* (no vision), or wish to avoid scrutiny, they are >>> abusing their right to abstain and failing the organisation as a >>> trustee. >> >> If they do it persistently, then sure. Is there a board member that is >> doing it persistently? > > How could I know that as previously abstainers were not recorded as > such. My hope, expressed in my original email to this list, is that > looking forward abstentions will be well explained in the minutes or > forcibly curtailed if abused. > > -- > John Vandenberg
Abstains have always been recorded, just like yes/no/recusal votes. The only thing that has changed is attaching names to the vote. Stu is right that we use the language "recuse" when there is a conflict of interest and the trustee *should* not vote; abstain is simply not voting. -- phoebe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
