That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it is practical. I think at some point you have to trust people to be able to handle that kind of indirect conflict. People are indirectly conflicted on pretty much everything if you use a broad enough definition. Being able to handle that is a prerequisite for being a trustee. On Oct 7, 2012 2:03 PM, "Roger Bamkin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> One thing that needs preserving here is not knowing who voted for what > (where there is a conflict of interest). Without this then "your mate" may > not feel free to vote the way that s/he thinks is good for WMUK. The whole > point of excluding those who have declared COI is to allow the other > trustees to vote without influence from the excluded trustee. > > Roger > > On 7 October 2012 13:14, Richard Farmbrough <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Couldn't you just say "not a good idea"? >> >> On 06/10/2012 17:36, Katie Chan wrote: >> >>> an absolutely horrendous proposal >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l> >> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >> > > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
