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.
--Michael Snow
