On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:55 AM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 08:53:24AM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> How about if they just abstain from any votes where there may be a conflict
> of interest? I would hate to limit the ability of people to contribute
> technically just because they were elected to council.

The confusing thing about this is, how would we define "conflict of
interest"?

Suppose that the council decides to accept an appeal from comrel. Is it
a conflict of interest for a member of the council who is also a member
of comrel to vote in the appeal? If it isn't, it is at least a pretty
strong perception that it is.

Often, "conflict of interest" is defined as "possible conflict of interest" -- meaning, if there is simply the potential for a conflict of interest, one would abstain from voting. There doesn't need to be a clear indication that there *is* a conflict of interest or that someone is abusing their position, just the *potential* for this to happen where someone *could* benefit from the decision being made (they are voting on a situation in which they happen to be personally involved, etc..) In these cases, those who find themselves in this position would abstain or would be asked to abstain, to prevent accusation that the vote was skewed.

Potentially, it might be good if a member could also request a person to abstain if they felt there was a conflict of interest. The concept is that if the Foundation is able to eliminate potential conflicts of interest in votes, then the votes have much more authority (they are less subject to being questioned) and it helps to establish trust in the decision-making process.

Best,

Daniel