Hoi, When you are part of the board, you can and you should be able to say the harshest things. This is expected of a board member. A non disparagement agreement is meant to keep the noise down when the words are spoken outside of the environment. It does help both a persons personal standing and the standing of the board when people can find it in themselves to be polite and political in how they express themselves.
I doubt how much (legal) value can or should be given to such a document, it is certainly a great way to point out that a person who is in violation of such an agreement is indeed the arse hole that this behaviour demonstrates.
*Terms of disparagement* are pejorative words and phrases which are either intended to be or are often regarded as insulting, impolite or unkind.
Given the definition it is bad behaviour in the first place.. Now what is the problem in stating that you will not behave in an objectionable way in the first place ??
Thanks, Gerard
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
---> Non disparagement agreement/confidentiality agreement Mike proposed a document on which there was no consensus. The issue is consequently delayed to a later meeting. Some board members also
refused
to sign such a document. It was agreed that a more detailed pledge of commitment, listing duties of board member toward WMF as well as WMF toward board members, could
be
a better solution than simply a non disparagement agreement.
What is a non-disparagement agreement? From the name, it sounds like an agreement not to say bad things about people - if that's it, then I'm glad we have board members sensible enough to refuse to sign it. There are times when it is in the best interests of the foundation for someone to stand up and make it clear that they are not happy about something - that includes board members.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l