>  I believe the Board could and should consider the wider needs to obtain
the best possible range of strategic advice and input, epsecially as we
move into yet another
strategic review

That strikes me as a difficult statement to disagree with, though also
difficult to actually achieve if you take the very expansive definition of
conflict of interest that you suggest.

Chris





On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chris Keating wrote: "Fortunately the Board isn't required to consider
> whether hypothetically infuture some other organisation's interests might
> conflict with the Foundation's: only whether in practice they do."  This is
> not correct: one of the functions of the Board is to assess the risks to
> the WMF and this necessarily involves assessing whether certain situations
> might arise in the future that have not arisen now.  This is normal
> practice, and it is why the WMF has a risk register which is reviewed
> regularly by the Audit Committee (see
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_Committee/2015-03-16 and
> discussion at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_noticeboard/Archives/2016#Risk_Assessment_Document_update
> – it would have been helpful to this discussion if that document had been
> made available to the community as proposed).
>
> This was not a case of a hypothetical future event which did not need to be
> considered, but a risk that needed to be assesd: indeed, as we have been
> clearly told, it was assessed by WMF staff, and their decision was that the
> risk could be managed.  My point was that the Board should consider whether
> the processes required to manage the risk would diminish the effectiveness
> of the trustee concerned to an unacceptable degree: "I do believe it needs
> serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees" is what I wrote.
>
> It appears that the WMF are taking a narrow view of conflict of interest in
> terms of financial interest and the fiduciary duty of the Trustees.  That
> is their position, and they are entitled to hold it, although it is not a
> view I have worked with often in my own experience.  I believe the Board
> could and should consider the wider needs to obtain the best possible range
> of strategic advice and input, epsecially as we move into yet another
> strategic review: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017
>
> "Rogol"
> _______________________________________________
> 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