Thanks WereSpeilChequers, I especially approve of "You could define a
de minimis threshold, perhaps a shareholding that pays you dividends
worth no more than a cup of coffee a month is not worth declaring. But
for simplicity and transparency it might be easier to recuse from any
decision where you are a shareholder."[1]

This cost-free and minor improvement to WMF governance would help a
lot towards community confidence in the WMF board, particularly if the
WMF adopted the transparency practices for (pre-emptive) public
trustee declarations of interest we implemented for Wikimedia UK as
part of necessary governance improvements.[2]



On 10 January 2016 at 12:11, WereSpielChequers
<> wrote:
> Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest for
> a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at
> the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock
> options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of interest
> policy <>,
> which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached.
> I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes
> <>
> to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is
> since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing trustee
> works for, nor  have I asked any board member how many Google shares that
> they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the
> WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very
> surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of
> interest policy as I understand it.
> To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that would
> mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an
> interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only
> apply to decisions made after the rules were updated.
> WereSpielChequers

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to