Also apt to be useful information for other affiliates - oh, they did or didn't do blah and it added up to serious problems; we've been heading in that sort of direction too and should probably stop, or similar - often it's things we can all learn from, so if presented as such and handled consistently, there need not be shame in it.
On 19/09/2018 02:49, Pine W wrote:
I have several thoughts regarding this and related issues, but my main feeling is that we should not hide news that would be in the public interest to communicate, such as the suspension of an affiliate or an investigation into an affiliate's use of trademarks, simply because it is bad news or embarrassing news.
There are good reasons to keep certain information private, such as preparations for pending litigation or personally identifying information that has not been made public. The potential for negative publicity if information is published, such as the suspension of an affiliate, isn't sufficient justification for keeping information private.
Good governance is difficult to do if relevant information is kept private. One of the benefits of having news regarding official actions be public is that the public can evaluate the performance of the officials (in this case, Affcom). Transparency is a useful deterrent against favoritism, negligence, and other problems in public service organizations in general. I generally want transparency regarding both the official actions of affiliates and the official actions of Affcom. I would like Affcom to set an example of being transparent by default, whether news is good or bad.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe