Delirium wrote:
Patrick, Brad wrote:
Don't assume anything. If you are speaking
as a person interested in
Wikipedia, great. I'm sure you have good things to say about
Wikipedia
in Thailand. Good for you. All I am saying is that you do *not* have
the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.
I'm not sure if you're new here or what, but this isn't how we do
things at the Wikimedia Foundation. We discuss politely, if
sometimes heatedly, on the mailing list, not brusquely and
dictatorially.
Waerth asked if the Foundation had confidence in him to discuss with
this organization; not if he legally has the authority to enter into
commitments on behalf of the foundation, which is quite a different
matter. In short, his question did not call for a legal opinion,
and offering one unsolicited was unhelpful, misrepresenting the
matter, and impolite.
This criticism is totally misplaced. Note that Brad addressed whether
Waerth could *speak* on behalf of the Foundation, responding directly
to Waerth's question. The issue is not limited to whether Waerth is
authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation to enter into
agreements.
Lawyers are not restricted to giving legal opinions and nothing else,
sometimes they need to represent their clients in communicating with
third parties, as Brad did here. Brad's intervention was helpful
(because it got across his client's position), misrepresented
nothing, and if it wasn't as polite as suits your tastes, it's
because more polite ways of communicating this hadn't yet gotten the
message across.
It *did* misrepresent the matter, and does not appear to have
accurately represented his client's position either, as the more
helpful and accurate reply by Anthere (an *actual* board member) was
quite different from Brad's.
-- Unhelpful reply (Brad): "You do *not* have the authority to speak
on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.".
-- Helpful reply (Anthere): "I think that is fine you go and contact
these people. I'll be happy if something gets out of it. ... As long
as you do not make believe others that you are allowed to make
decisions in the name of the Foundation, that's fine. Just make that
clear."
So the actual position of at least one board member seems to be,
contrary to what you claim, that the issue *is* limited to whether
Waerth is authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation (he isn't,
and doesn't believe himself to be), but that it's perfectly fine if he
contacts third parties for collaboration with Wikimedia as long as he
doesn't represent himself as being an agent of the Foundation. Which
seems a lot more sensible and helpful as a reply to me.