John Vandenberg, 31/03/2012 06:56:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg 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 abstain
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:16 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
>>> make decisions in the best interests of the organisa
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
>> make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
>> it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg wrote:
> There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
> make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
> it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because
> they cant see *it* (no vision),
My personal view on this John is that abstaining is appropriate in a couple
cases:
- you truly don't have an opinion and trust those who do have opinions to make
the decision. in that case it's really a decision to support the majority view
of the others who are voting.
- you don't particular
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
>> organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
>> problem), or you are incompetent.
>
> Either that, or you're ho
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg wrote:
> if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
> organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
> problem), or you are incompetent.
Either that, or you're honest. Nobody knows everything (except me, of course!).
___
if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
problem), or you are incompetent.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> An abstention is a refusal to vote
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg wrote:
> 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.
>
> To often board m
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg 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 o
Michael Peel 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
On Mar 31, 2012, at 12:33 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I would advise caution when thinking about other ways to raise funds.
> Chapters certainly should think about it, but given how easily we, as
> a movement, can raise so much money with the annual fundraiser (no
> other charitable movement has th
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg 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"?
___
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Michael Peel > 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 co
On 31 March 2012 01:37, Theo10011 wrote:
> 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.
But evaluated against what criteria? And what data is going to
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Michael Peel 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 ne
The diversity and the variety helps to react in a better way to the changes.
The reduction of the ways to donate helps to control and to monitor, but
gives less variety.
Ilario
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiv
On 30 March 2012 23:17, Nathan wrote:
> Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
> funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only
> where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the
> reliability and integrity of funds
On 30 Mar 2012, at 23:17, Nathan wrote:
> Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
> funds, either in 2012 or beyond,
[citation needed]. Also, [attribution needed]. There are those that are
contemplating this, and those that aren't - it's not as clear cut as you im
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> "We ask the Executive Director not to allow any additional chapters to
> payment process, until the Board revisits the framework for fundraising and
> payment processing in late 2015 in advance of the November 2016 fundraising
> campaign."
>
I just sent this to internal-l, because I hadn't seen this thread.
This discussion should, of course, happen in public, so I'll repeat
myself here:
Thank you very much for this prompt announcement. I am glad to see the
WMF board is open to some fundraising by chapters, but I would
appreciate some
Michael Peel, 30/03/2012 23:52:
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.
+1 (as on the other topic). I hope this will done, at least for this
particular resoluti
"We ask the Executive Director not to allow any additional chapters to payment
process, until the Board revisits the framework for fundraising and payment
processing in late 2015 in advance of the November 2016 fundraising campaign."
This is very disappointing. It's a real shame that chapters as
Dear members of the community,
After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to
announce the following three resolutions
1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
1) Fundraising 2012:
h
Sharing from the Foundation-l mailing list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Denny Vrandečić
Date: 2012/3/30
Subject: [Foundation-l] Press release about Wikidata
To: Foundation list
Hi all,
Wikimedia Germany is sending out a press release about Wikidata today. The
press release
Hi John,
Yep, that was part of our (relatively short) discussion as well. I cannot
recall why we dropped it at that time, but the Board Governance Committee
proposed this now as a good practice.
Jan-Bart
On 30 mrt. 2012, at 16:27, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:19 AM,
On 30 mrt. 2012, at 15:19, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>
>
> Yes. This will also avoid, as recently, board members appearing to
> later disclaim actions (a vote) that they were in fact responsible for
> taking.
>
>
> - d.
>
1) Assume good faith, I cannot recall ANY incident in which a board me
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
>> That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the
>> community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss,
>> and in such situations it is muc
On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the
> community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss,
> and in such situations it is much easier for the "losing" side in the
> community if they can
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:03:55 +0200
> From: phoebe ayers
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] resolution on voting transparency
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> During the Board of Trustees meeting
> During the Board of Trustees meeting today we passed a resolution on
> Trustee voting transparency:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
>
> asking that in future resolutions we publish the names of trustees
> with their votes for each resolutio
phoebe ayers, 30/03/2012 14:03:
During the Board of Trustees meeting today we passed a resolution on
Trustee voting transparency:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
asking that in future resolutions we publish the names of trustees
with their vot
During the Board of Trustees meeting today we passed a resolution on
Trustee voting transparency:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency
asking that in future resolutions we publish the names of trustees
with their votes for each resolution.
best,
Pho
Hi all,
Wikimedia Germany is sending out a press release about Wikidata today. The
press release sums up the information that has been published on Meta since
last Wikimania, where it was first presented and discussions started, and
refined since then, including information about the donation that
34 matches
Mail list logo
