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
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)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.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com
> 2016-03-03 2:06 GMT+01:00 Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>om>:
> > 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.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org