On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the other.
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
Really, Andreas? You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment standards or expectations. That would be the VP Human Resources...who has just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the other.
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183 _______________________________________________ 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
Anne,
This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes, publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated. Perhaps we can agree on that.
As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.
Andreas
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Really, Andreas? You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment standards or expectations. That would be the VP Human Resources...who has just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
kept
private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
discussion
around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the other.
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183 _______________________________________________ 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
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.
I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency
Sarah
"Requests for transparency" is highly inaccurate; what you are requesting is information. The two are not synonymous. I have moved the page to the more correct name.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_information
On 12 March 2016 at 22:18, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.
I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency
Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
Umm....what the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards. The NDA is an employer-employee agreement. It is not subject to the wishes of the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way. NDAs are used to control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up to and including termination should they violate them. In the case of volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure depending on the nature of the disclosure.
There have been transparency problems, no question about it. But they had nothing to do with NDAs. Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point. They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne,
This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes, publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated. Perhaps we can agree on that.
As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.
Andreas
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Really, Andreas? You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
employment
standards or expectations. That would be the VP Human Resources...who
has
just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
kept
private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
to
transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
discussion
around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
are
quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
clamouring
crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be
good
to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or
the
other.
Andreas
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
[2]
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
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
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
Guys...gals...some perspective?
The important thing (as Andreas initially said) is that informal commitments from Trustees, to seek transparency in specific areas, not continue to get lost.
The questions about what department it belongs in, the speed at which they get addressed, etc. are all very much secondary to that general point. If and when somebody from the organization acknowledges the general point, all those tactical questions go away, because that person will presumably find the most sensible way to address them.
I don't think it makes sense to use this email list to evaluate the proper department for a specific task. A suggestion here and there, sure. But fully evaluating it and coming to a strong conclusion...that's a job for the organization, not for whatever volunteers happen to be following the list at any given moment.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Umm....what the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards. The NDA is an employer-employee agreement. It is not subject to the wishes of the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way. NDAs are used to control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up to and including termination should they violate them. In the case of volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure depending on the nature of the disclosure.
There have been transparency problems, no question about it. But they had nothing to do with NDAs. Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point. They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne,
This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what
these
NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's
useful
for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't
talk
about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes, publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated. Perhaps we can agree on that.
As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.
Andreas
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Really, Andreas? You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do
this
and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
employment
standards or expectations. That would be the VP Human Resources...who
has
just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
kept
private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies
are
fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy
of
personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
to
transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and
non-disparagement
clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
discussion
around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
are
quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
clamouring
crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be
good
to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible
for
tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or
the
other.
Andreas
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
[2]
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
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
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
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise again some weeks, months, years down the line.
It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta listing transparency requests.
Sarah
On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.
It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta listing transparency requests.
Why would this be within the community engagement department? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not actually seeing any logical explanation for it being a CE issue. It seems more a legal issue (in respect of board/executive transparency) or human resources issue (in respect of NDAs). It's pretty obvious from what has bubbled to the surface over the last few months that transparency was NOT just an issue from the community perspective. Perhaps a transparency officer in Legal might make sense.
Risker/Anne
Hm.. in my experience, legal departments focus above all on managing risk on behalf of their clients and using the legal system to the maximal benefit of the organization of which they are a part. In my view, putting Transparency in Legal is a recipe for minimal disclosure, not maximal. The Transparency officer should be C level and advocate for maximal disclosure. I reckon they would often be opposed by Legal.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
are
quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
clamouring
crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.
It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer
within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta listing transparency requests.
Why would this be within the community engagement department? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not actually seeing any logical explanation for it being a CE issue. It seems more a legal issue (in respect of board/executive transparency) or human resources issue (in respect of NDAs). It's pretty obvious from what has bubbled to the surface over the last few months that transparency was NOT just an issue from the community perspective. Perhaps a transparency officer in Legal might make sense.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ 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
Le 13/03/2016 03:09, Andreas Kolbe a écrit :
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the other.
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
Hello Andreas,
I am a contractor to the WMF and have signed a wild range of legal documents. Both to protect my company, myself, the Wikimedia Foundation Organization and the end-users.
Among such documents, there is the Non Disclosure Agreement which is pretty much standard whenever an organization deal with any kind of sensitive informations. Wikimedia Foundation handles emails, passwords, email address, IP address and most probably payment information for the fundraising and shop.
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA whenever they get privileged access. The process is on: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA
What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using a pseudonym. But do not quote me on that.
For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An example would be: https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
The short version is: do not mess with the infrastructure or extract sensitive informations. You will be prosecuted.
As for why you haven't had anyone reply back, a few hints:
* ED has changed * folks are busy * not everyone monitor wikimedia-l
So I would assume good faith: probably nobody noticed the request hidden somewhere in a thread.
Since NDA is a legal document, I would highly recommend you to reach out directly to their Legal team:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal , apparently the answers@ email would be a good entry point.
(I have read/signed the documents there is nothing any important for the end users to see beside what is already publicly available. They can probably be made public. In effect there is no conspiracy.)
Hope it helps.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks, Luis.
Direct link: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_Employment_Agreement_Confident...
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks Luis!
It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which is nice. I'm not sure how new NDAs change the status of people who signed old versions, of course.
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
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr
wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks Luis!
It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which is nice.
There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in the severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.
Luis
Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement that included a financial payment from WMF, that would be... very interesting. And potentially very problematic.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr
wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but
honestly
there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and
a
couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks Luis!
It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which is nice.
There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in the severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.
Luis _______________________________________________ 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
On 3/14/2016 9:14 AM, Pine W wrote:
Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement that included a financial payment from WMF, that would be... very interesting. And potentially very problematic.
Or it could be a relatively routine business practice. For example, in many cases an employer is not required to pay out accumulated leave when an employee departs, but may well offer to do so in connection with a severance agreement. And it would not be surprising for a non-disparagement clause to be requested in that context. Other possibilities include facilitating the ex-employee's retaining some employer-provided benefits (health insurance, retirement accounts, etc.) or arranging a transition of those benefits until the person has found a new position.
Since I gather Luis didn't sign the agreement, he may be at liberty to share whether the offer included a financial element, and if there was anything that would warrant concerns aside from the non-disparagement clause. At the same time, it is for him a personal matter, I don't think he should be pressured to disclose details he considers private. Since I trust Luis's judgment without hesitation, I am happy to leave it to his discretion what he does and doesn't want to reveal.
--Michael Snow
I think it is probably best that human resources issues (including the reasons for people leaving the organization) are not included in this list, unless expressly disclosed by the individuals.
Risker
On 14 March 2016 at 12:14, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement that included a financial payment from WMF, that would be... very interesting. And potentially very problematic.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr
wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but
honestly
there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses,
and
a
couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks Luis!
It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which is nice.
There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in
the
severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.
Luis _______________________________________________ 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
On 14 March 2016 at 09:40, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is probably best that human resources issues (including the reasons for people leaving the organization) are not included in this list, unless expressly disclosed by the individuals.
And, in particular, wild speculation on said topics. Let's keep our discussions here grounded in fact, not speculation.
Dan
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of public interest?
Actually, no, you probably can't ask that question either - because the names of the individuals who have departed are pretty much all publicly known. (There's even a timeline in which all their names are mentioned, linked from news articles and other "external" locations.) In many jurisdictions, it is potentially illegal for employers to disclose such information; many would feel it unethical for an employer to disclose the departure conditions absent a mutual agreement between the employer and the departed. California human resources law would allow for a civil suit that could result in a large settlement, either individually or as a group (think high-tech employees lawsuit). This is an area where "transparency" very definitely intersects with the privacy rights of those individuals who are directly affected. Privacy should win.
Risker/Anne
On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of public interest? _______________________________________________ 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
We need to distinguish between the personal and private details of individuals and the policies of the WMF around management of employees. It should be clear to everyone that employee satisfaction, retention, dispute management and other issues of personnel management are central to the controversies of the last few months. It's disingenuous to argue that these matters must all be off-limits for public discussion simply because they fall under the umbrella of "HR." Having said that...
The names of the people who have left may be public; whether they accepted a severance package or not obviously is not and should not be publicized except willingly by them. It is relevant and useful information for the rest of us to understand if severance agreements have been packaged with non-disparagement clauses that could prevent negative but highly topical and timely information from being released. We can probably infer that this is the case from the profound silence emanating from most departed employees, but it would be nice to know for sure if money and benefits were used to insulate Lila or others from the effects of serious mismanagement.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no, you probably can't ask that question either - because the names of the individuals who have departed are pretty much all publicly known. (There's even a timeline in which all their names are mentioned, linked from news articles and other "external" locations.) In many jurisdictions, it is potentially illegal for employers to disclose such information; many would feel it unethical for an employer to disclose the departure conditions absent a mutual agreement between the employer and the departed. California human resources law would allow for a civil suit that could result in a large settlement, either individually or as a group (think high-tech employees lawsuit). This is an area where "transparency" very definitely intersects with the privacy rights of those individuals who are directly affected. Privacy should win.
Risker/Anne
On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of public interest? _______________________________________________ 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
There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and "how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses". One is general, and the other is specific; the first can likely be answered, but the second is getting into "personal information" territory. While I know there has been a definite and reasonable concern about the frequency and nature of departures over the last several months, we are still talking about a small number of very publicly identified individuals.
Just as importantly, those clauses tend to go both ways - in that the WMF may also be bound not to disclose them too, as part of the individual separation agreements. They tend to be built right into some employment contracts with 'golden parachute' clauses, for example. As well, separation agreements are much less common when people resign as opposed to - shall we say - being monetarily urged to look for other opportunities elsewhere; identifying the actual number may reveal the circumstances under which some people left the organization, which can have a serious impact on their future earnings and ability to secure future employment.
Risker/Anne
On 14 March 2016 at 13:37, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
We need to distinguish between the personal and private details of individuals and the policies of the WMF around management of employees. It should be clear to everyone that employee satisfaction, retention, dispute management and other issues of personnel management are central to the controversies of the last few months. It's disingenuous to argue that these matters must all be off-limits for public discussion simply because they fall under the umbrella of "HR." Having said that...
The names of the people who have left may be public; whether they accepted a severance package or not obviously is not and should not be publicized except willingly by them. It is relevant and useful information for the rest of us to understand if severance agreements have been packaged with non-disparagement clauses that could prevent negative but highly topical and timely information from being released. We can probably infer that this is the case from the profound silence emanating from most departed employees, but it would be nice to know for sure if money and benefits were used to insulate Lila or others from the effects of serious mismanagement.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, no, you probably can't ask that question either - because the names of the individuals who have departed are pretty much all publicly known. (There's even a timeline in which all their names are mentioned, linked from news articles and other "external" locations.) In many jurisdictions, it is potentially illegal for employers to disclose such information; many would feel it unethical for an employer to disclose the departure conditions absent a mutual agreement between the employer and
the
departed. California human resources law would allow for a civil suit
that
could result in a large settlement, either individually or as a group (think high-tech employees lawsuit). This is an area where
"transparency"
very definitely intersects with the privacy rights of those individuals
who
are directly affected. Privacy should win.
Risker/Anne
On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of public interest? _______________________________________________ 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
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
I'm looking at this issue from a few angles.
1. If an initial employment contract has a provision that employees who voluntarily resign and provide X amount of notice will be paid out something like their accrued vacation time (I believe that some jurisdictions require this) and a certain amount of medical coverage (ranging from the remainder of a month to 6 months), and no restrictions on free speech are involved, I think this would be fine.
2. If there is a payoff of WMF funds to employees in exchange for them agreeing to speech restrictions, I would question whether that's an appropriate use of donor funds and also whether placing conditions on employee speech is appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be strongly aligned with values of freedom of expression.
3. I think that there should be more transparency about how WMF funds are used in general, and this includes employment matters for both WMF and affiliates. Government agencies in the US disclose a lot of information about their employees, almost always including compensation, and in many jurisdictions disciplinary records are also public records. It seems to me that WMF should strive to have at least the same standard for transparency of government agencies. Among other problems that arise when compensation levels are opaque, it's very difficult to do a thorough job of evaluating WMF and affiliate budgets without knowing how employees are compensated so that the appropriateness of that compensation can be evaluated. IEG grantees already have our compensation published, and it seems to me that this practice should be extended to the other grants programs and to WMF.
Pine
I should narrow the scope of my statement a bit. I understand a need for, and support, carefully crafted NDAs that protect information like credit card numbers and personally identifiable information. I am skeptical of overly broad or vague NDAs, as well as non-disparagement clauses. I am particularly skeptical of the appropriateness of offering payoffs to an employee of WMF (or affiliates) in exchange for the employee's agreement to a non-disparagement clause.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking at this issue from a few angles.
- If an initial employment contract has a provision that employees who
voluntarily resign and provide X amount of notice will be paid out something like their accrued vacation time (I believe that some jurisdictions require this) and a certain amount of medical coverage (ranging from the remainder of a month to 6 months), and no restrictions on free speech are involved, I think this would be fine.
- If there is a payoff of WMF funds to employees in exchange for them
agreeing to speech restrictions, I would question whether that's an appropriate use of donor funds and also whether placing conditions on employee speech is appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be strongly aligned with values of freedom of expression.
- I think that there should be more transparency about how WMF funds are
used in general, and this includes employment matters for both WMF and affiliates. Government agencies in the US disclose a lot of information about their employees, almost always including compensation, and in many jurisdictions disciplinary records are also public records. It seems to me that WMF should strive to have at least the same standard for transparency of government agencies. Among other problems that arise when compensation levels are opaque, it's very difficult to do a thorough job of evaluating WMF and affiliate budgets without knowing how employees are compensated so that the appropriateness of that compensation can be evaluated. IEG grantees already have our compensation published, and it seems to me that this practice should be extended to the other grants programs and to WMF.
Pine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and "how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses".
Risker, can you say who you're attributing those quotes to? I only see the words "how many" in your message -- not in any of the others in this thread.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Well, Pete, I certainly interpreted Nathan's question as being specific enough to require that a number be given.
On 14 March 2016 at 14:28, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements"
and
"how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses".
Risker, can you say who you're attributing those quotes to? I only see the words "how many" in your message -- not in any of the others in this thread.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ 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
Hi folks,
Please, please, please put pieces of this discussion that are important to you on the transparency practices page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transparency/Practices
There are a lot of ideas floating around and its important to have them in one place.
Thanks all! Edward
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Pete, I certainly interpreted Nathan's question as being specific enough to require that a number be given.
On 14 March 2016 at 14:28, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements"
and
"how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses".
Risker, can you say who you're attributing those quotes to? I only see
the
words "how many" in your message -- not in any of the others in this thread.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ 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
Luis,
The original announcement of your departure[1], posted on Feb. 8, said,
Quote: "Later this month, Luis will transition out of his current position with the Wikimedia Foundation to pursue other opportunities. He will remain in a consulting role with the Foundation over the next few months, continuing to support our ongoing strategy and annual planning processes."
Are you currently doing work for WMF in a consulting role, or was that consulting role part of the severance agreement you declined?
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/081702.html
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr
wrote:
To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but
honestly
there is no conspiracy behind that. There are public clues though:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and
a
couple others, on-wiki at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundati...
Luis
Thanks Luis!
It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which is nice.
There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in the severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.
Luis _______________________________________________ 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
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA whenever they get privileged access. The process is on: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA
What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using a pseudonym. But do not quote me on that.
As a member of the #WMF-NDA-Requests project in Phabricator I can view L2, but I can't see the signatures. The list of people who can is hidden in a Phabricator custom policy. There is a task upstream about making it possible to read custom policies.
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An example would be: https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
I believe this one is accessible to anyone logged in: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L3
As another data point, I joined the WMF last April and there was no non-disparagement clause in my employment agreement. I suspect that at some point someone realized it wasn't much good and dropped it from the standard agreement, but older employees like Oliver were never given an updated agreement to sign. I definitely think that should be fixed, but I'm sure you can imagine it's not HR's top priority right now.
*Neil P. Quinn* +1 (202) 656 3457
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Monk krenair@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA whenever they get privileged access. The process is on: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA
What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using a pseudonym. But do not quote me on that.
As a member of the #WMF-NDA-Requests project in Phabricator I can view L2, but I can't see the signatures. The list of people who can is hidden in a Phabricator custom policy. There is a task upstream about making it possible to read custom policies.
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An example would be: https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
I believe this one is accessible to anyone logged in: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L3 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Andreas,
Thanks for your email. A few wmf staff have worked on a page on meta to invite anyone to post their thoughts about transparency at https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transparency/Practices. Would you be able to post your idea there? I'd be happy to post it there for you if you have not yet done so / dont have time.
Based on what you say about being "no nearer to transparency", it would be great to know what "transparency" means to you and how transparency (or lack of transparency) affects you or your wikimedia work. There is no silver bullet to fixing transparency for everyone all the time, so I think its important to get on the same page first about the problem. I hope you find this page useful.
Thanks so much, Edward
On Mar 12, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of personal information, etc.
Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely desirable.
At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise again some weeks, months, years down the line.
Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the other.
Andreas
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org