Dariusz, can you give me your reasons for ruling out an independent review into WMF board practice, along the lines of the review the WMF commissioned into WMUK three years ago? I would have thought this was an option to embrace.
On Sunday, January 10, 2016, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > Well spotted. Expressing the amount of ownership that rises to a conflict > of interest in terms of a percentage of all shares in the company strikes > me as startlingly inappropriate. > > Owning 1% of a company worth $400 billion would be a very, very significant > conflict of interest for a board member. Owning 11% of a tiny company worth > $5,000, not so much. Surely, what matters is not the percentage of > ownership, but its monetary value. > > As you say, for simplicity and transparency it is clearly best if board > members recuse from any decisions involving a company they hold shares in. > > That change to the Conflict of Interest policy should be made as soon as > possible. > > Andreas > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Recent threads query whether it is or should be a conflict of interest > for > > a board member to support the appointment of someone who used to work at > > the same company, and whether multiple board members have shares or stock > > options with a particular company. So I have read the Conflict of > interest > > policy <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy > >, > > which from my lay person's reading does not appear to have been breached. > > > > I have taken the opportunity to propose a couple of changes > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_transparency_gap#Conflicts_of_interest_-_investments > > > > > to that policy. Note I have not first tried to find out how long it is > > since a certain new trustee left the same company that an existing > trustee > > works for, nor have I asked any board member how many Google shares that > > they own. But I am making the assumption that no individual member of the > > WMF board currently owns 10% or more of Google, so I would be very > > surprised if any of them have managed to break the current conflict of > > interest policy as I understand it. > > > > To be clear I am not proposing any sort of retrospective change that > would > > mean a past decision was void because a trustee voted despite having an > > interest according to these new rules. Any change to the rules could only > > apply to decisions made after the rules were updated. > > > > WereSpielChequers > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] <javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;> > ?subject=unsubscribe> -- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
