Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review
into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned
into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to
embrace.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well spotted. Expressing the amount of ownership that rises to a conflict
> of interest in terms of a percentage of all shares in the company strikes
> me as startlingly inappropriate.
>
> Owning 1% of a company worth $400 billion would be a very, very significant
> conflict of interest for a board member. Owning 11% of a tiny company worth
> $5,000, not so much. Surely, what matters is not the percentage of
> ownership, but its monetary value.
>
> As you say, for simplicity and transparency it is clearly best if board
> members recuse from any decisions involving a company they hold shares in.
>
> That change to the Conflict of Interest policy should be made as soon as
> possible.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> 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 <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/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
> > <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments
> > >
> > 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:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Anthony Cole
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to