On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Michael Peel <michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk > wrote:
> On voting transparency: this is a great step forward. However, I would > encourage the WMF to take a further step, and to explain why trustees voted > approve/abstain/against. This could potentially be done by (for examples) > adding notes next to votes explaining reservations or key supporting > factors, or by making resolutions more focused (e.g. the fundraising > decision could have been split into four: principles, chapter payment > processing, four chapters, and additional chapters, which would have > provided more insight here). Agreed. I'm really glad to see the individual voting on those resolution. I would love to know more about the mind-set as well, it seems like a reasonable request. This helps explain the current mentality and stances within the board. I had a couple of wrong impressions about the current trustee stances before seeing the individual votes, this helps clear things up. My thanks to Sj for being alone in opposing this, now I'm curious about the abstains; back to conjecturing, I suppose. Thomas, I think 2015 is chosen because FDC is set to be evaluated at the end of 2014, following which, either it would act as the buffer on those issues or get back to the drawing board. Regards Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
