*[Assume good faith] page in a nutshell:*
- Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that
people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
- If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not
ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives.
The guideline clearly mentions that we should assume that people who work for the project are trying to help it not hurt it. But does AGF apply to Foundation matters? While some believe that the Foundation has been acting in good faith in this situation and say we should trust the Foundation, many of us are saying that the foundation should have told us more. However, the foundation was clearly not acting in bad faith. They hired someone and either did not think to run a background check or forgot to do one. Either way, assuming faith with the board is a very dubious thing to do. We can assume that the board hired Carolyn Doran in good faith. When Carolyn left, she had a right to have her reason for leaving confidential. If the foundation wanted to keep her reason for leaving private, they could do so. The foundation can not be hold to the tenants of AGF. What the foundation does is above the guidelines, not polices, of Wikipedia. Yes, we should assume the council is acting in good faith, however, anything that happens at the Foundation level should be held to the microscope. Everything that the council does should be looked at in good faith, but when something fishy shows up, we must look at it AS IF something suspicious is happening.