My personal view on this John is that abstaining is appropriate in a couple
cases:
- you truly don't have an opinion and trust those who do have opinions to make
the decision. in that case it's really a decision to support the majority view
of the others who are voting.
- you don't
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*
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
John Vandenberg, 31/03/2012 06:56:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenbergjay...@gmail.com wrote:
I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the
board. If not, then the board should put in
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:56 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the
board.
On 3/31/12 8:07 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenbergjay...@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
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to
announce the following three resolutions
1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
1) Fundraising 2012:
We ask the Executive Director not to allow any additional chapters to payment
process, until the Board revisits the framework for fundraising and payment
processing in late 2015 in advance of the November 2016 fundraising campaign.
This is very disappointing. It's a real shame that chapters
Michael Peel, 30/03/2012 23:52:
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.
+1 (as on the other topic). I hope this will done, at least for this
particular
I just sent this to internal-l, because I hadn't seen this thread.
This discussion should, of course, happen in public, so I'll repeat
myself here:
Thank you very much for this prompt announcement. I am glad to see the
WMF board is open to some fundraising by chapters, but I would
appreciate some
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
We ask the Executive Director not to allow any additional chapters to
payment process, until the Board revisits the framework for fundraising and
payment processing in late 2015 in advance of the November 2016
On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:17, Nathan wrote:
Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
funds, either in 2012 or beyond,
[citation needed]. Also, [attribution needed]. There are those that are
contemplating this, and those that aren't - it's not as clear cut as you
On 30 March 2012 23:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only
where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the
reliability and
The diversity and the variety helps to react in a better way to the changes.
The reduction of the ways to donate helps to control and to monitor, but
gives less variety.
Ilario
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Since payment processing is not contemplated as a
On 31 March 2012 01:37, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas, I think 2015 is chosen because FDC is set to be evaluated at the
end of 2014, following which, either it would act as the buffer on those
issues or get back to the drawing board.
But evaluated against what criteria? And what
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
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by abuse of abstains?
On Mar 31, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I would advise caution when thinking about other ways to raise funds.
Chapters certainly should think about it, but given how easily we, as
a movement, can raise so much money with the annual fundraiser (no
other charitable movement has their
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
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
An abstention is a refusal to vote. By doing this, a trustee must
have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be
minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and
should be removed.
To
if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
problem), or you are incompetent.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
problem), or you are incompetent.
Either that, or you're honest. Nobody knows everything (except me, of
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
problem), or you are
24 matches
Mail list logo
