Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Patrick, Brad wrote
The WP:OFFICE policy is still in its infancy. People will challenge it through their words and actions. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But I believe everyone who believes in the future success and sustainability of the project must also recognize the need for judicious use of confidentiality at the Foundation level.
Personally I do not see any need for a non profit public foundation dedicated to legally publishing free information created by the public at large; and located physically in the United States of America; to be engaged in excessive secrecy. Certainly employee social security numbers should be kept private in keeping with U.S. laws. The need for secret or private communications tools such as restricted email lists, non public meetings, etc. escapes me.
While I believe in more openness, I don't think that your prosecutorial tone is warranted. Some confidentiality is needed, but those who suppress information with inadequate explanation have to accept the consequence that people will complain loudly.
Certainly I would advise you to comply strictly with all provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act when called upon by warrant to cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities, unless you enjoy small cubicle environments.
That's remarkably inconsistent of you. You begin by complaining about excessive secrecy then contradict yourself by supporting a piece of totalitarian trash that would impose just that, notably in forbidding people who have received information requests from letting anyone know that they have received such requests. When it comes to circumventing laws the U.S. Patriot Act is fair game.
It has been my experience that often lawyers cite specific sections of U.S. or State code or regulations or even specific phrases or case law when informing lay people of their opinions regarding legal matters.
Not always. Most speak from authority and are willing to exploit that logical fallacy to its fullest. If you demand verifiability it comes at a price.
Perhaps if you or the office were to write up some specific recommendations regarding how the community or the Wikimedia Foundation or your client could avoid legal liabilities by actually complying with the applicable laws rather than simply recommending that the Foundation get secretive about its "private" matters we could avoid some legal risks in the future?
Clarifying the parameters of confidentiality would be a worthwhile debate. Simply doing things because one is in a position to know that it should be done in secret is not enough. Even the most trusted people need to be accountable.
I suggest the community members present on the Foundation-L mailing list consider a placebo vote regarding whether the Wikimedia Foundation should issue an apology to Eric and reimburse him for the long distance calls necessary to recover his editing priveleges.
"Placebo vote" sounds like an interesting concept. I interpret such a vote as one designed to make people feel good without accomplishing anything. :-)
The Foundation officers and Board members have a fiduciary obligation to the organization, as I do as a lawyer for my client.
Certain members of the community (and notably, not Mr. Moeller) have expressed dissatisfaction about WP:OFFICE and its use. There is a healthy debate yet to be had about it. We can have that debate, but I also have to make clear that the Foundation's obligations are greater than loyalty to any one user. Even someone with the history of contributions to Mr. Moeller.
Are the Wikimedia Foundation's obligations greater than loyalty to a single founder or stacked Board of Directors?
In the event of a conflict do you work for the stacked Board, Jimmy Wales, or the Foundation? Is your client the stacked Board, Jimmy Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation? What is the legal signature on checks sent to your office in response to invoices? Does U.S. and/or Florida law distinguish between individuals in offices and the organization itself?
This sounds like cross-examination to me.
Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any fiduciary responsibilities to the contributing public and the public at large under U.S. law? Are these responsibilities defined exclusively by U.S. law or are the public solicitations used to gather public donations considered somewhat influential or binding in Florida State or U.S. Federal courts?
The public accountability of a broadly funded multinational organization is a seriously difficult question. It comes as no surprise that legal and other professional expertise hired by mangement will support positions favorable to management. Membership in The Foundation is very weakly defined, and is mostly based on being an editor. An early provision would have had one board member elected by a paid members, but that has never been developed. Membership rights and powers are probably as strong as the rights of minority shareholders in for-profit corporations.
It's a no-brainer to say that Florida corporate law applies to the operation of the Foundation, because that is where it is incorporated. The tax law of each separate state controls the right to solicit funds in each state; that can cause a registration nightmare. While the Foundation can solicit foreign donations, these will not normally be tax deductible for those foreign residents. Tax deductibility in those countries requires, among other things, some kind of administrative organization in that country. This is often accompanied by rules to prohibit the export of donated funds.
I am often highly critical of the current management format, but I can also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of such a model.
Ec