Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Michael Peel
On 7 Oct 2012, at 22:37, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin wrote: >> Classically the board tried to get a >> consensus on all matters. > > That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to > make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 22:34, Roger Bamkin wrote: > Classically the board tried to get a > consensus on all matters. That's the problem right there. A fear of disagreement. Far better to make a half-decent majority decision than fail to make any decision at all because there isn't a consensus. __

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Roger Bamkin
Hi Gordan I thought your comment was a bit uncalled for. I'm not sure that any of the trustees meet socially when there is no meeting - ie the "mates" idea is more imagined than real.. Classically the board tried to get a consensus on all matters. I'm not sure that discussing a particular case is g

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
People can make errors of judgement for all sorts of reasons. Overfamiliarity can be a cause, but it is hardly necessary. On Oct 7, 2012 8:24 PM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > > > It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, > when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should ask

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Gordon Joly
It seems clear that being friends allows a group to protect an individual, when that person (e.g. Roger Bamkin) should asked to consider his position. It appears that he was protected. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Gordon Joly
On 07/10/12 19:55, Thomas Dalton wrote: Then what were you disagreeing with? I am suggesting that Trustees should be colleagues, and not friends. That allows for full, frank, and professional discussion. Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimedi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
Then what were you disagreeing with? On Oct 7, 2012 7:47 PM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I >> was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other >> chapters, the WMF, th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Gordon Joly
On 07/10/12 19:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: Please elaborate. I'm not on the WMUK board any more, but when I was I was frequently involved in decisions about other UK volunteers, other chapters, the WMF, the WMUK board itself, and all kinds of other groups any bodies which include people I am friends

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 19:26, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >> >> Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be >> considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act! >> > I disagree, Please elaborate. I'm not on th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Gordon Joly
On 07/10/12 14:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impossible for anyone to ever act! I disagree, YMMV, Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK mailing lis

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Gordon Joly
On 07/10/12 14:03, Roger Bamkin wrote: The whole point of excluding those who have declared COI is to allow the other trustees to vote without influence from the excluded trustee. But don't you all go down the pub afterwards? Gordo ___ Wikimedia UK

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 7 October 2012 18:15, Jan-bart de Vreede wrote: > Hey, > > So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right, > friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of > the organization first. To me "mate" is just a colloquial synonym for "friend". Compli

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Jan-bart de Vreede
Hey, So I felt that "mate" implies more than friendship, but you are right, friendship should never get in the way of simply putting the interests of the organization first. With regards to your second statement: agreed Jan-Bart On 7 okt. 2012, at 15:39, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On Oct 7, 2

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Morton
Sure. But such a situation is complicated; because the implication is that in a private vote trustees may vote differently than in a public one, perhaps so as not to upset their friendship (or for whatever reason). This, I suggest, is not addressed by making such votes secret. But, under good gove

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Katie Chan
On 07/10/2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough wrote: Couldn't you just say "not a good idea"? On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote: an absolutely horrendous proposal I could, I didn't. I could also had said it was "a good idea" or even that it was "a great idea" but I didn't. All the best to yo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Roger Bamkin
I was only suggesting this where there was a COI. Most votes ( should be free and could be declared publically). I find t difficult to believe that anyone is going to be influenced by friendship actually - my proposal was designed to prevent trustees from being accused of being influenced. Roger

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
On Oct 7, 2012 2:26 PM, "Jan-bart de Vreede" wrote: > If you are someone's "mate" then you probably have a COI is as well, and I would assume you would also recuse yourself... Just being friends with someone that has an interest in an issue can't be considered a conflict. That would make it impos

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Thomas Dalton
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it is practical. I think at some point you have to trust people to be able to handle that kind of indirect conflict. People are indirectly conflicted on pretty much everything if you use a broad enough definition. Being able to handle that is a prerequis

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Jan-bart de Vreede
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 y

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Roger Bamkin
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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

2012-10-07 Thread Richard Farmbrough
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.wiki