On 29 February 2016 at 20:43, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Risker
So please, let's stop pretending those two words mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing at all. But would you really dispute the
statement that WMF leaders should be both transparent AND honest?
Transparency is a fundamental WMF value.
Nobody here is talking about vendor agreements; at least I am not. I have
no problem whatsoever with your scenario. If the WMF enters into an
umbrella agreement or business deal with Google or whoever, then that is
something the community should know. If the WMF gets computer hardware at a
preferential rate, absolutely no one is interested in that.
Because, Andreas, I do not want the Wikimedia Foundation to commit
suicide. On what basis do you say, with complete confidence, that the
basis of the issue is NOT a contract, or a legal agreement, or a human
resources issue - all of which will likely require some degree of
non-transparency? For example - if the focus of all this excitement is a
human resources issue, there are very, very strict regulations about what
can and cannot be public. It's why there is an "executive session" at
every board meeting - because human resource issues involving identifiable
persons MUST not be publicly discussed.
I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF would be
interested in buying, so I'm finding your example a bit weird. And
unfortunately, there are indeed enough people around here who are so
determined to have total transparency that they *would* believe that
failure to publicly report that the WMF had received computer hardware at a
preferential rate was *failing to be transparent.*
So yes, I do dispute that WMF leaders must always be both transparent and
honest. Honest, I'll go for - although as we're pretty clearly seeing in
this situation, there's a pretty wide divergence between what different
leaders consider honesty. But not transparent. I don't want them
reporting personal human resources issues or other legally confidential
issues publicly - if for no other reason than they'll be slapped with
lawsuits that would be a terrible, terrible waste of our donor's money.