foundation-l-request(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> Delirium wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick, Brad wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't assume anything. If you are speaking as a person interested in
>>>> Wikipedia, great. I'm sure you have good things to say about
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>> in Thailand. Good for you. All I am saying is that you do *not* have
>>>> the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation,
>>>> Inc.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if you're new here or what, but this isn't how we do
>>> things at the Wikimedia Foundation. We discuss politely, if
>>> sometimes heatedly, on the mailing list, not brusquely and
>>> dictatorially.
>>>
>>> Waerth asked if the Foundation had confidence in him to discuss with
>>> this organization; not if he legally has the authority to enter into
>>> commitments on behalf of the foundation, which is quite a different
>>> matter. In short, his question did not call for a legal opinion,
>>> and offering one unsolicited was unhelpful, misrepresenting the
>>> matter, and impolite.
>>
>> This criticism is totally misplaced. Note that Brad addressed whether
>> Waerth could *speak* on behalf of the Foundation, responding directly
>> to Waerth's question. The issue is not limited to whether Waerth is
>> authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation to enter into
>> agreements.
>>
>> Lawyers are not restricted to giving legal opinions and nothing else,
>> sometimes they need to represent their clients in communicating with
>> third parties, as Brad did here. Brad's intervention was helpful
>> (because it got across his client's position), misrepresented
>> nothing, and if it wasn't as polite as suits your tastes, it's
>> because more polite ways of communicating this hadn't yet gotten the
>> message across.
>
> It *did* misrepresent the matter, and does not appear to have
> accurately represented his client's position either, as the more
> helpful and accurate reply by Anthere (an *actual* board member) was
> quite different from Brad's.
>
> -- Unhelpful reply (Brad): "You do *not* have the authority to speak
> on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.".
>
> -- Helpful reply (Anthere): "I think that is fine you go and contact
> these people. I'll be happy if something gets out of it. ... As long
> as you do not make believe others that you are allowed to make
> decisions in the name of the Foundation, that's fine. Just make that
> clear."
>
> So the actual position of at least one board member seems to be,
> contrary to what you claim, that the issue *is* limited to whether
> Waerth is authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation (he isn't,
> and doesn't believe himself to be), but that it's perfectly fine if he
> contacts third parties for collaboration with Wikimedia as long as he
> doesn't represent himself as being an agent of the Foundation. Which
> seems a lot more sensible and helpful as a reply to me.
I suppose it's convenient for you to overlook another part of Anthere's
reply: "in truth Walter, board members should not themselves speak *in
the name* of the Foundation." In the end, I see no particular
contradiction between Anthere's statement and Brad's. If they want to
play good-cop/bad-cop, that's their business, but Brad did not
misrepresent anything. He was seeing to it that the Foundation's
previously communicated position was clear, just the sort of thing an
attorney should be doing for a client.
--Michael Snow
