Birgitte SB wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/21/08, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Are Mike and Sue open to reviewing alternative versions presented?
"Some time ago, the board received a new draft of its future "board statement of responsibility".[1]
"It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft"[2]
"What Florence has now shared is the first draft of that document. We're not at a stage of voting on or signing this either."[3]
I interperted all the emphasis on "draft" to mean that it is negotiable.
Absolutely, that's correct.
As I said before, much of the value of these kinds of agreements lies in the conversation that precedes them. The conversation we're all having now (board + staff + here on this list) is precisely the point. What do we consider to be personal disparagement versus constructive disagreement. What do we consider to be a conflict of interest, and how do we want to handle them. In an organization that prizes transparency, what do we feel needs, nonetheless, to remain confidential - e.g., to what extent do we want to talk publicly about donor names, staff salaries, internal board discussions, etc. For each of those (and other) questions, there are legal/regulatory considerations, and there are also important values-oriented considerations. It's a good conversation to have.
I would characterize the agreement -as given to the board- as a straw proposal. It's a draft, on paper, intended to get the conversation started. It may stay 99% the same, or 80% or 50%. It's intended to get us started.
Having said that, I do feel for Mike. I don't think it's possible to craft a document that will fully satisfy every single person :-)
[1]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-May/042984.html [2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-May/042997.html [3]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-May/043026.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l