Hoi, Tabloids have an infinite capability of spin. the assumption that you can prevent them from misrepresenting "truth" is precarious, borderline insane. So it is a situation where you only lose anyway. Given our communities abilty to rub salt in wounds, we do not even need others to inflict damage. Thanks, GerardM
On Dec 14, 2007 6:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/12/2007, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I think that is a bit naive. A confidentiality agreement when someone
leaves
may assure that both parties indicate to the rest of the world that the parture of ways was amicable. The alternative can be quite costly and unproductive. If anything, the only thing I wish the WMF would have done differently is make a public statement at the time that "Carolyn has
left
her position, and that we thank her for the services rendered". This
would
be an adequate and honest statement as long as it is true. It is true as long as no criminal offences have happened. When there were, and to the
best
opinion of the WMF this is the best way of ending the relation, it
should
still be true as far as the rest of the world is concerned. And, I am
happy
to say, we, the community of volunteers of the WMF projects, qualify as such.
While such an agreement may seem like a good idea at the time, I think the current situation shows why that thinking is flawed. Had the WMF been open about the whole situation at the time, we wouldn't now be in the situation of having our credibility ripped to shreds in the tabloids. It's not a fun thing to do, but generally when something bad has happened it's best to admit it and face the music, trying to keep it hidden just results in more trouble in the long run.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l