Nathan writes:
It seems as though it would have benefited the organization to have simply stated at the time of separation between WMF and Ms. Doran that there were personnel issues which the Board was bound to disclose.
We could not have stated such a thing because it would have been legally incorrect to do so.
Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the story would be published.
You may be sure that the question of whether to respond at all to the Register was fully discussed internally. Part of the problem here, I think, is that you are presuming we knew enough about what the Register was going to write to provide you with adequate information to respond to the story. I believe, for various reasons, that this was not the case. Please believe me when I say that I prefer to disclose pretty much everything, and that I prefer that responses to attacks of this sort come from the community in general rather than from me in particular.
Please also understand that I retitled this thread for a sound legal reason. You needn't take my word for it. Talk to any other lawyer who handles personnel matters.
If the WMF is unable to comment any further because of continuing legal constraints (which is completely possible) that too would be pertinent information.
I believe that's what I said.
If you intended to convey this in your response below, it isn't clear to me.
Here's what I wrote:
Now, you may disagree about this, and I respect your disagreement, but please understand that even a community-oriented, volunteer-driven enterprise can't always share all the information it has regarding a personnel matter. There are legal constraints that apply to the Board, to staff, and to anyone acting formally on the Foundation's behalf.
I actually used the words you used -- "legal constraints."
But I'll say it again. There are legal constraints on what we can say about a personnel matter.
--Mike
Given that the Register was going to break the story, would it not have been appropriate to have broken it ourselves first--or given also an interview to some other publication? Or at least be prepared to do so simultaneously, by at least posting on slashdot.
This was not a good way to handle negative information As well as making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who knows PR.
On 12/14/07, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Nathan writes:
It seems as though it would have benefited the organization to have simply stated at the time of separation between WMF and Ms. Doran that there were personnel issues which the Board was bound to disclose.
We could not have stated such a thing because it would have been legally incorrect to do so.
Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the story would be published.
You may be sure that the question of whether to respond at all to the Register was fully discussed internally. Part of the problem here, I think, is that you are presuming we knew enough about what the Register was going to write to provide you with adequate information to respond to the story. I believe, for various reasons, that this was not the case. Please believe me when I say that I prefer to disclose pretty much everything, and that I prefer that responses to attacks of this sort come from the community in general rather than from me in particular.
David Goodman wrote:
This was not a good way to handle negative information As well as making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who knows PR.
We have a very good PR firm. We consulted them. Their advice was good and we followed it.
--Jimbo
The Foundation looks dumb in all this, but rather than beating each other up about the past, I'd prefer to inquire about the present.
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm? I have in mind problems ranging from poor accounting and mismanagement to ouright fraud and embezzlement.
I realize there are likely limits to what one can discuss publicly if there were problems, but perhaps a more general statement denying any problems would be possible. For example, a statement like: "To the best of our knowledge, Ms. Doran's performance as COO was satisfactory and we do not believe that her actions had any direct negative impact on the Foundation during her time here."
Something like that would give me peace of mind that this situation is now concluded (aside from the bad PR).
The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be disspelled if possible.
-Robert Rohde
On Dec 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm?
Surely part of the current ongoing audit is to determine the answer to that question. Without the audit being completed, I don't see how the Foundation possibly *could* offer such assurances.
The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be disspelled if possible.
The possibility that there isn't a link between this person's involvement as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is even more troubling.
Why did Brad leave, anyway?
On Dec 14, 2007 4:55 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Why did Brad leave, anyway?
Probably it is linked to the recent issue of documents being destroyed by the CIA.
I mean, really, folks...
On Dec 14, 2007 7:55 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm?
Surely part of the current ongoing audit is to determine the answer to that question. Without the audit being completed, I don't see how the Foundation possibly *could* offer such assurances.
They could speak to what they currently know. Even a statement that they don't currently know of any problems but are in the process of conducting an internal review would be reassuring.
The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and
the
subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be
disspelled if
possible.
The possibility that there isn't a link between this person's involvement as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is even more troubling.
There have been a variety of public reasons noted for the audit's delay
including such things as moving to SF. To my recollection, I haven't seen COO issues in the list. There is a huge practical difference between: "The audit was delayed due to the complexity of Wikimedia's finances and the distractions of the current relocation" and "The audit was delayed because our former COO stole money from us and now we are reviewing every transaction she ever touched with a fine toothed comb."
If we accept Mike's statement that the WMF has no documentary evidence of a criminal record (and assume he is not simply being disingenuous by distinguishing between documentation and knowledge), then the logical extension is that the audit delays (whatever their cause) were not triggered by knowledge of Ms. Doran's prior bad acts.
-Robert Rohde
Durova wrote:
I write these words in the good faith hope that this publication is so seriously mistaken that no other press will pick up the story.
Evidence turned up by Wikinews folks shows that this is, unfortunately, not the case.
On Dec 14, 2007 11:12 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 7:55 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:30 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm?
Surely part of the current ongoing audit is to determine the answer to that question. Without the audit being completed, I don't see how the Foundation possibly *could* offer such assurances.
They could speak to what they currently know. Even a statement that they don't currently know of any problems but are in the process of conducting an internal review would be reassuring.
The possibility of a link between this person's involvment as COO and
the
subsequent delay in the audit is a troubling one and should be
disspelled if
possible.
The possibility that there isn't a link between this person's involvement as COO and the subsequent delay in the audit is even more troubling.
There have been a variety of public reasons noted for the audit's delay
including such things as moving to SF. To my recollection, I haven't seen COO issues in the list. There is a huge practical difference between: "The audit was delayed due to the complexity of Wikimedia's finances and the distractions of the current relocation" and "The audit was delayed because our former COO stole money from us and now we are reviewing every transaction she ever touched with a fine toothed comb."
If we accept Mike's statement that the WMF has no documentary evidence of a criminal record (and assume he is not simply being disingenuous by distinguishing between documentation and knowledge), then the logical extension is that the audit delays (whatever their cause) were not triggered by knowledge of Ms. Doran's prior bad acts.
-Robert Rohde
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Robert Rohde wrote:
They could speak to what they currently know. Even a statement that they don't currently know of any problems but are in the process of conducting an internal review would be reassuring.
We don't currently know of any problems but we are in the process of the audit... carried out by a professional third party audit firm annually and routinely.
--Jimbo
Robert Rohde wrote:
This person was in a sensitive position. Can the Foundation offer assurances that her actions in this position did not cause any material harm? I have in mind problems ranging from poor accounting and mismanagement to ouright fraud and embezzlement.
At the present time, with the audit incomplete, of course it is not possible to say for sure. But I give you my personal assurance that if there was any stolen money, I will personally donate enough money from my own pocket to account for it down to the penny.
I feel comfortable making that promise, because I do not think there was any material harm. But I want people to feel comfortable about that now.
--Jimbo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org