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
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.
__
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
