-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 11/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Why ? Ask yourself, what good does disparagement do.
Depending on your definition, simply informing the public of wrongdoing could be considered disparagement, and that certainly can do some good.
We already went through this discussion internally. The document as written is quite explicit that constructive discourse is something to be encouraged and is not being restricted in any way -- I certainly wouldn't have signed it otherwise.
This isn't about saying "in my opinion, Wikimedia would be better off doing X instead of Y" or "Z was a bad call and should have been done differently", it's about saying "Wikimedia are a bunch of incompetent jerks!" -- and vice versa (Wikimedia can't say "Brion was a moron" after I hypothetically leave, but we're free to disagree about actual things).
As for why this sort of agreement is required; as employees we are agents of the Wikimedia Foundation, working on its behalf. As company representatives, we're expected to behave ourselves like adults -- our behavior reflects on the company, and the company's behavior reflects on our own professional reputations.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have to write this sort of thing down and sign it, as it would simply be understood. We also shouldn't have to spell out that yelling and throwing objects at one another is unacceptable behavior.
But sometimes people do behave inappropriately, and that reflects poorly on everybody. Making the rules explicit reminds everyone what is expected; making the agreement two-sided encourages everybody to remember they're professional adults and act like it, as it's in all our best interests.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)