Hoi,
Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
interest?
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli <valde...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
> sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
> committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
> candidacy and to manage them better.
>
> Kind regards
> Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" <m...@anderswennersten.se> ha
> scritto:
>
> > I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his
> mail
> > made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> > resign the only reasonable way forward
> >
> > BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
> a
> > year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> > byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
> look
> > into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> > election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> > selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
> >
> > For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> > ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> > consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> > strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> > influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
> that
> > he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board
> work.
> >
> > But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> > the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> > requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> > challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
> (lightweight)
> > "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified
> this
> > risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> > future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> > election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> > candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> > from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> > for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
> candidate
> > statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> > had helped?
> >
> > The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> > will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
> in
> > the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> > discussion of learnings can start independently.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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