Speaking in general terms, I like the idea of requiring early and public disclosures of conflicts of interests that seem reasonably likely.
Also speaking in general terms, I'm aware of a number of Wikimedians in the United States and Canada who are directly employed by government organizations, and who seem to be good about managing their potential conflicts of interest. It certainly seems to me that being a government employee should, in general terms, be seen as no more or less a potential conflict than being an employee of Google or any number of other organizations that have complicated relationships with Wikimedia. Sometimes the interests of these organizations are compatible with Wikimedia, and sometimes they're not. In my experience most people who proactively disclose their affiliations are good about managing them. I would worry much more about someone who conceals a potentially troublesome association than someone who proactively discloses their associations a manner that's reasonable for someone who's in their particular role in the Wikimedia movement.
Pine
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Cristian, when I said I heartily endorse what Asaf said, I meant exactly that. I agree with him, and with you, that accusatory email threads without evidence are toxic, and should be avoided.
But questions about Conflict of Interest are appropriate. In a Board selection process, we do not merely Assume Good Faith, we Assess the Conditions Impacting Good Faith.
Or at least, we should.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian@gmail.com
wrote:
2016-03-03 2:06 GMT+01:00 Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com:
I heartily endorse what Asaf has said here, but I'd add one thing:
When someone runs for the board, that introduces a standard that goes beyond Assume Good Faith.
Yes, but please also note the difference between "assume good faith" and the moral duty of refraining from making unsubstantiated claims of being part of a corrupt and despotic system.
Compare the last email from Andreas in this thread with the first two and draw your own conclusions.
I would like that everybody on this list tries to hold up to the (much lower) second standard.
You are of course welcome to ask tough questions to the candidates. IMHO, tough questions are usually so, because they present evidence to back their contents.
C
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe