Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It seems to me that he is basically right. The doctrine is [[respondeat superior]], and it typically applies only to people working in an official capacity.
Anthony
I looked at the article [[respondeat superior]]. It typically applies only to people in a relationship of employer/employee.
"is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment."
The problem is that there are only two people in that type of situation. Others are not a relationship of employer/employee. Neither the board members, nor the officers (except possibly Danny, but he is not employed as an officer).
So, I am not sure how this doctrine exactly applies to us. But let's imagine that for some reason, it actually applies to us.
What is missing is Gerard argument (which is to claim that board members and officers are better protected than volunteers) is the field of application of the protection.
What would be the field of application ? it would be the activities directly in relation with the Foundation itself. And only those activities. So, I do not see where the comparison stands.
Editorial field : If a board member edits an article and adds defamatory content, he is responsible just as a regular volunteer. This activity is unrelated to the Foundation activities and I doubt much the board member (or the officer) will be more protected than any one else. This is his own responsability to add defaming content to an article imho.
However, if a board member makes a real bad decision in terms of allowing expenses, it is normal that he holds a certain responsability. A volunteer not involved in the Foundation can *not* take that decision, so there is no reason why he would be held responsable. Hence, the first may be protected by the Foundation, but there is no reason to protect the second person from a decision he can not be involved. There is no lack of equality or unfairness, since the field of application only applies to the first person.
Now, what I think bother Gerard is this : what if a volunteer answers in OTRS and does so in the name of the Foundation, even though he has received no authority/delegation to do so? Will he be protected ? Probably not. He is even liable to the Foundation and should the Foundation be threatened by the answer given by the volunteer, the Foundation could indeed defend itself by suing the volunteer. In that sense, yes, the volunteer is *less* protected than the board member/officer. But here, I think the volunteer must use common sense and not "imply" he is talking in the name of the Foundation when he is not. Or if he does so, it is best he be careful of his answer.
And... for those of you who do not have access to OTRS, any message sent through info-en contains at its bottom the following message :
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site operators at http://www.wikimediafoundation.org.
So, the risk is very limited indeed. It mostly relies on common sense and good faith from both parties.
ant