Given that the Register was going to break the story, would it not have been appropriate to have broken it ourselves first--or given also an interview to some other publication? Or at least be prepared to do so simultaneously, by at least posting on slashdot.
This was not a good way to handle negative information As well as making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who knows PR.
On 12/14/07, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nathan writes:
It seems as though it would have benefited the organization to have simply stated at the time of separation between WMF and Ms. Doran that there were personnel issues which the Board was bound to disclose.
We could not have stated such a thing because it would have been legally incorrect to do so.
Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the story would be published.
You may be sure that the question of whether to respond at all to the Register was fully discussed internally. Part of the problem here, I think, is that you are presuming we knew enough about what the Register was going to write to provide you with adequate information to respond to the story. I believe, for various reasons, that this was not the case. Please believe me when I say that I prefer to disclose pretty much everything, and that I prefer that responses to attacks of this sort come from the community in general rather than from me in particular.