Delirium wrote:
Patrick, Brad wrote:
Don't assume anything. If you are speaking as a person interested in Wikipedia, great. I'm sure you have good things to say about Wikipedia in Thailand. Good for you. All I am saying is that you do *not* have the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
I'm not sure if you're new here or what, but this isn't how we do things at the Wikimedia Foundation. We discuss politely, if sometimes heatedly, on the mailing list, not brusquely and dictatorially.
Waerth asked if the Foundation had confidence in him to discuss with this organization; not if he legally has the authority to enter into commitments on behalf of the foundation, which is quite a different matter. In short, his question did not call for a legal opinion, and offering one unsolicited was unhelpful, misrepresenting the matter, and impolite.
This criticism is totally misplaced. Note that Brad addressed whether Waerth could *speak* on behalf of the Foundation, responding directly to Waerth's question. The issue is not limited to whether Waerth is authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation to enter into agreements.
Lawyers are not restricted to giving legal opinions and nothing else, sometimes they need to represent their clients in communicating with third parties, as Brad did here. Brad's intervention was helpful (because it got across his client's position), misrepresented nothing, and if it wasn't as polite as suits your tastes, it's because more polite ways of communicating this hadn't yet gotten the message across.
--Michael Snow