The community elected Denny knowing that he worked at Google
If this was an additional conflict of interest taken on after his election
then things might be different, but this looks to me something better
resolved by declaring the interest and recusing from relevant votes and
I'm not entirely happy with the current board and especially the loss of
Doc James. Unless I've missed it neither the GLAM nor Medical sectors now
have an advocate on the board, but removing an elected board member for a
conflict of interest that was declared in his election statement would not
make sense to me.
There is a wider issue that we also have people who have previously been
connected to various other organisations whose strategies might impinge on
ours. Do we or should we have some sort of break requirement such
as requiring directors to recuse from decisions involving recent former
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Pierre-Selim asked: "Are you suggesting the removal of another communitee
> selected board member?"
> I'm sure Denny would make a fine adviser. But having a voting board member
> who is paid by Google, who in turn is almost the (and would like to be the)
> monopoly commercial vendor of knowledge to the world, strikes me as wrong.
> That's much too close an embrace.
> Anthony Cole
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org