Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

Craig Franklin-2
>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:48:55 +0100
> From: Chris Keating <[hidden email]>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
> Message-ID:
>        <[hidden email]
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:56 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the
> > >> board.  If not, then the board should put in place procedures to
> > >> prevent abuse of abstains.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by "abuse of abstains"?
> >
> > An abstention is a refusal to vote.  By doing this, a trustee must
> > have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be
> > minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and
> > should be removed.
> >
> >
> I have never heard of this idea before - where did you get it from?
>
> People with votes on all kinds of bodies abstain on things all the time,
> for all kinds of valid reasons. The most prominent recent example I can
> think of is that Sivlio Berlusconi's government in Italy was brought down
> by MPs he expected to support him abstaining instead.
>
> We don't know why Arne and Bishakka abstained, or why SJ voted against - it
> is only evident they did not feel able to support the motion as it stood.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>

For the record, those who did not vote in favour of the resolutions, this
morning explained their reasons for doing so.  I'm sure someone more
eloquent than I can summarise those reasons, but I think that they were
valid.  John Vandenberg is correct that if people are consistently
abstaining to avoid making hard or unpopular decisions then that is a
problem, but I do not think that this is presently the case with the BoT.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Craig Franklin, 31/03/2012 23:20:
> For the record, those who did not vote in favour of the resolutions, this
> morning explained their reasons for doing so.  I'm sure someone more
> eloquent than I can summarise those reasons, but I think that they were
> valid.  John Vandenberg is correct that if people are consistently
> abstaining to avoid making hard or unpopular decisions then that is a
> problem, but I do not think that this is presently the case with the BoT.

There are some notes on
http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmcon12-day2-board-chapters

Nemo

P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why
should opposing be justified /more/ than supporting?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

Thomas Dalton
On 31 March 2012 22:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why should
> opposing be justified /more/ than supporting?

There's supposed to be a Q&A coming that will explain the supports.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

phoebe ayers-3
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 22:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why should
>> opposing be justified /more/ than supporting?
>
> There's supposed to be a Q&A coming that will explain the supports.

That's true! Soon -- in a couple of days (everyone is traveling
today/tomorrow so it's hard to review quickly). I'll send a note when
we get it done, of course.

In the meantime, if there are any questions for us (as a board) or for
individual trustees I encourage you simply to send those along, either
to me (if you want them to go to the whole board, as I will pass them
along) or privately. That would help make sure that we can address the
questions people actually have, rather than speculating. It sounds
like people are interested in individual trustee motives. I do think
it's better if trustees individually write/talk about where they are
coming from, rather than trying to put that information in an official
document like the minutes, where everything is condensed and there is
the possibility of misrepresentation.

Nemo, thanks for sending around the notes -- that's quite helpful! I
think we have some notes that Joslyn took too, I'll see if there is
anything I can add from that (though etherpad still doesn't seem to
work well in my browser - boo.)

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95

Federico Leva (Nemo)
phoebe ayers, 01/04/2012 07:49:

> In the meantime, if there are any questions for us (as a board) or for
> individual trustees I encourage you simply to send those along, either
> to me (if you want them to go to the whole board, as I will pass them
> along) or privately. That would help make sure that we can address the
> questions people actually have, rather than speculating. It sounds
> like people are interested in individual trustee motives. I do think
> it's better if trustees individually write/talk about where they are
> coming from, rather than trying to put that information in an official
> document like the minutes, where everything is condensed and there is
> the possibility of misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation is a risk also for "majority views": minutes are
always partial but they're supposed to explain or briefly highlight how
the body came to some conclusion. Individual members should also be able
to submit a few lines of explanation summarizing their view, if they
want (again, I don't know if some of them actually wants, but they
should definitely be allowed to).

> Nemo, thanks for sending around the notes -- that's quite helpful! I
> think we have some notes that Joslyn took too, I'll see if there is
> anything I can add from that (though etherpad still doesn't seem to
> work well in my browser - boo.)

Don't use HTTPS! Unless the editing is still hectic (I doubt so), we
could just immediately move those on Meta, which is their final
destination anyway.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l