Talk:Govcom Agenda 23Jan14: Difference between revisions
MichaelMaggs (talk | contribs) (Thanks) |
(→Transparency: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
On point 3, can I encourage GovCom to look at and consider my proposal for an [[Advisory Board]]? It is a different issue from WMUK's relationship with volunteers, though. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | On point 3, can I encourage GovCom to look at and consider my proposal for an [[Advisory Board]]? It is a different issue from WMUK's relationship with volunteers, though. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Yes, thanks Mike. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | :Yes, thanks Mike. --[[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs|talk]]) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | ||
== Transparency == | |||
Could Govcom please review how transparency and accountability can remain at the center of our shared [[Values]]? Over the past year there have been various actions that appear to do the opposite, the most recent being the apparent decision of the board of trustees to make open votes secret in addition to the in-camera votes. This means that it is much harder for members to hold trustees to account in to be fulfilling their personal commitments made when they were voted in (of course this is only relevant to the class of trustees that get voted in, rather than appointed without the members having a say). Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:38, 4 January 2014
On point 3, can I encourage GovCom to look at and consider my proposal for an Advisory Board? It is a different issue from WMUK's relationship with volunteers, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks Mike. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Transparency
Could Govcom please review how transparency and accountability can remain at the center of our shared Values? Over the past year there have been various actions that appear to do the opposite, the most recent being the apparent decision of the board of trustees to make open votes secret in addition to the in-camera votes. This means that it is much harder for members to hold trustees to account in to be fulfilling their personal commitments made when they were voted in (of course this is only relevant to the class of trustees that get voted in, rather than appointed without the members having a say). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)