Dan Rosenthal wrote:
No. For one thing, what is a "directory senior officer"? For another, it does not address independent contractors. For a third, it does not address the over-broadness of the "shall not...make any statement that....is derogatory of Employer". Provision IV's first clause is unnecessary, as the agreement would not supersede US laws anyway.
While I'm willing to consider Geoffrey's alternative in the spirit with which it was presented, it seems to me that any alternative at this stage only digs a deeper hole. If the non-disparagement policy is to have any value at all we need to agree to underlying principles first, and only then judge a specific text in terms of consistency with those principles. The principle that one should not speak ill of fellow Wikipedians is probably acceptable to most, but that pre-supposes that speaking ill is well-defined. In reality, what to some of is is just the normal cut and thrust of debate will be viewed as grave insult by others.
While a breach of such policy can always be easily remedied with a current employee by the simple phrase, "You're fired," that can't be easily applied to a trustee, or even a former employee. This is especially the case when that person is not a resident of the United States, and refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the US courts in this matter.
The anti-disparagement policy seems to be more characteristic of an inner circle closing ranks. This may not be the real intent, but it can be difficult for intent to match perception.
Ec