Hello,
Some time ago, the board received a new draft of its future "board statement of responsibility".
This follows the document presented to the board in April, which was opposed by Kat and I.
I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to provide your input.
I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the organization and individual board members.
In particularly, it includes * a non-disparagement agreement (with widely different appreciations on what disparagement is) * a very much extended conflict of interest agreement, which would require a board member to get authorization to do certain activities (as opposed to merely informing the board and not voting on resolutions when there is a perceived or real conflict)
It does not include * a statement of understanding from the board member, regarding mission and values
Your feedback is welcome, on these three points, or others (present or missing). I would like in particular to read opinions of candidates to the board on such matters.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statement
Best
Florence
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to provide your input.
I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the organization and individual board members.
Because this document is between the individual board members and the organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign it. If you're asking for advice on what *you* should do, it'd help to know how you currently feel about the document, as well as what ethical system you have adopted to make the decision of whether or not to sign it. In any case, I'd point out that you're not going to be on the board much longer anyway, so it seems to me the benefits of signing are negligible, even if the rest of the board members threaten to remove you from the board if you refuse to sign.
As for the other board members, one key question for them to consider is whether or not a majority of the board is likely to expel all members who refuse to sign.
Of course it is of importance! if this i to be signed by all board members, it will potentially influence the board functionig in practice. I think it "business" of all people who are concerned with the functioning of Wikimedia as a movement in the end. But *please* leave it up toher and her alone whether she wants to run for re-election, let's not decide that for her please. (I personally hope she will, it will be very hard to find a replacement just as good I think)
Signing or not signing because it is only for a short period of time sounds like a bad argument to me, btw.
I will certainly read the text with interest and a critical eye, thanks for asing our input, Florence!
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/5/17 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to provide your input.
I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the organization and individual board members.
Because this document is between the individual board members and the organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign it. If you're asking for advice on what *you* should do, it'd help to know how you currently feel about the document, as well as what ethical system you have adopted to make the decision of whether or not to sign it. In any case, I'd point out that you're not going to be on the board much longer anyway, so it seems to me the benefits of signing are negligible, even if the rest of the board members threaten to remove you from the board if you refuse to sign.
As for the other board members, one key question for them to consider is whether or not a majority of the board is likely to expel all members who refuse to sign.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:48 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Signing or not signing because it is only for a short period of time sounds like a bad argument to me, btw.
To clarify, the benefits of signing (not risking removal from the board?) would be for a short period of time. The detriments of it would last forever.
As for the rest of your post, I'm going to bite my tongue on my response, having had my speech chilled by previous bouts of moderation.
Because this document is between the individual board members and the organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign it.
The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do with it.)
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Because this document is between the individual board members and the organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign it.
The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do with it.)
I concur and, as Lodewijk already said, I'm glad that we have been given a chance for input here and I'll read it with interest!
Michael
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Because this document is between the individual board members and the organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign it.
The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do with it.)
Fair enough. That particular comment of mine wasn't that important anyway. Feel free to ignore it.
I certainly do *care* whether or not Florence signs the agreement, and I would hope that she doesn't, because I'd like to hear her uncensored opinion on Foundation issues after she leaves (if not while she's still here). But in the end, I don't think Florence cares what I want, so I tried to point out to her why it is in *her* best interest to refuse to sign the agreement.
As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input from us anyway. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
But in the end, I don't think Florence cares what I want, so I tried to point out to her why it is in *her* best interest to refuse to sign the agreement.
I expect she cares about what you want in as much as you are a member of the community and she clearly cares about what the community wants.
As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input from us anyway. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
While I expect Mike was the one to actually write it, what goes in is up the board, not the staff. Clearly at least one member of the board does want input from us.
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input from us anyway. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this invitation, however critical he may be.
NB: If this thread turns completely off-topic and becomes a flamewar on something quite unrelated, e.g. if you decide that it's now time to rediscuss all the alleged scandals of the last X years, where a NDA would have been unhelpful, the above might not apply because this would surely turn unproductive in minutes.
But as long as you stick to discussing the merits of the NDA itself [yes, I know, I shouldn't use this abbreviation because it is already reserved for the non-disclosure agreement, but I can't be bothered to write it out everytime], I don't see any problemtatic issues here.
Michael
It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft and not something the board is actively considering voting for at this time. Therefore, a detailed discussion of very minor word-smithing is probably going to be a waste of people's energy. (Feel free to do it, I am just saying that suggesting that a comma be moved, or that a provision be changed in some minor ways is probably not really the best approach right now.)
What is probably going to be more helpful is a broad discussion of principles and values.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft and not something the board is actively considering voting for at this time. Therefore, a detailed discussion of very minor word-smithing is probably going to be a waste of people's energy. (Feel free to do it, I am just saying that suggesting that a comma be moved, or that a provision be changed in some minor ways is probably not really the best approach right now.)
What is probably going to be more helpful is a broad discussion of principles and values.
--Jimbo
Absolutely.
Ant
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft and not something the board is actively considering voting for at this time. Therefore, a detailed discussion of very minor word-smithing is probably going to be a waste of people's energy. (Feel free to do it, I am just saying that suggesting that a comma be moved, or that a provision be changed in some minor ways is probably not really the best approach right now.)
What is probably going to be more helpful is a broad discussion of principles and values.
--Jimbo
Perhaps you could clarify what precisely was it that Florence Devouard and Kat Walsh voted against.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft and not something the board is actively considering voting for at this time. Therefore, a detailed discussion of very minor word-smithing is probably going to be a waste of people's energy. (Feel free to do it, I am just saying that suggesting that a comma be moved, or that a provision be changed in some minor ways is probably not really the best approach right now.)
What is probably going to be more helpful is a broad discussion of principles and values.
--Jimbo
Perhaps you could clarify what precisely was it that Florence Devouard and Kat Walsh voted against.
There was no vote. There was a draft non-disparagement agreement, which was not in any way ready for the board to sign, and which we've already had an extended discussion about on this list. Kat and Florence objected to some of its contents. We're now reviewing an attempt at a different approach, which at Florence's request merged that issue into a larger document summarizing the commitments and responsibilities of board members in a number of areas. What Florence has now shared is the first draft of that document. We're not at a stage of voting on or signing this either.
--Michael Snow
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input from us anyway. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this invitation, however critical he may be.
You and I have in the past had significant disagreements over what is considered "civil". There are certain things I want to say that I don't think you'd consider "civil", and I don't want to be in a situation where I make certain statements and am unable to back them up with specific examples.
I don't feel comfortable participating in this forum on this topic. If anyone wants my uncensored opinion on this matter, feel free to join me at http://wiki.p2pedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_Statement_of_Responsibility and ask questions.
Anthony
Hoi, If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there and consequently not be heard. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input from us anyway. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this invitation, however critical he may be.
You and I have in the past had significant disagreements over what is considered "civil". There are certain things I want to say that I don't think you'd consider "civil", and I don't want to be in a situation where I make certain statements and am unable to back them up with specific examples.
I don't feel comfortable participating in this forum on this topic. If anyone wants my uncensored opinion on this matter, feel free to join me at http://wiki.p2pedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_Statement_of_Responsibility and ask questions.
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there and consequently not be heard. Thanks, GerardM
Your loss.
Anthony
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Sent: 17 May 2008 15:44 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere
and
expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go
into
your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there and consequently not be heard. Thanks, GerardM
Your loss.
Anthony
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do* feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here. Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this forum.
If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.
In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally. Sorry for the missend.
Hoi, Why is it always others that are the key to a solution ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do* feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here. Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this forum.
If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.
In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally. Sorry for the missend.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Because it's the moderators who moderated me for weeks at a time, not for being uncivil, but because everybody elses conversations were going too quickly. So they moderated me. That kind of heavy handed, poor moderating, is why we don't feel that we can post here. Because we get threatened with moderation (or actually moderated) for completely civil comments.
-Dan On May 17, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Why is it always others that are the key to a solution ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do* feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here. Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this forum.
If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.
In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally. Sorry for the missend.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
please have moderation discussions elsewhere, this thread is about the draft florence sent us.
2008/5/17 Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com:
Because it's the moderators who moderated me for weeks at a time, not for being uncivil, but because everybody elses conversations were going too quickly. So they moderated me. That kind of heavy handed, poor moderating, is why we don't feel that we can post here. Because we get threatened with moderation (or actually moderated) for completely civil comments.
-Dan On May 17, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Why is it always others that are the key to a solution ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do* feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here. Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this forum.
If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.
In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally. Sorry for the missend.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony has said he didn't feel free to discuss the draft fully due to threat of moderation. GerardM challenged him on that. I'm providing supporting evidence. It's still tangentially on topic for the thread.
-Dan On May 17, 2008, at 12:22 PM, effe iets anders wrote:
please have moderation discussions elsewhere, this thread is about the draft florence sent us.
2008/5/17 Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com:
Because it's the moderators who moderated me for weeks at a time, not for being uncivil, but because everybody elses conversations were going too quickly. So they moderated me. That kind of heavy handed, poor moderating, is why we don't feel that we can post here. Because we get threatened with moderation (or actually moderated) for completely civil comments.
-Dan On May 17, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Why is it always others that are the key to a solution ? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do* feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here. Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this forum.
If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.
In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally. Sorry for the missend.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there and consequently not be heard. Thanks, GerardM
There's also something to be said about keeping your thoughts concise and to-the-point. Overly verbose people have the tendency of losing their audience (who will then just agree because it was so long, it must be right).
Several on this list could trim their posts before sending.
-Chad
"Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers."
That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good, criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course, I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to support them)?
Hoi, Some criticism is good some criticism is awful. We have seen concerted attacks on the WMF and its officers by some who do not deserve to be named or dare not to be named. When this is the criticism that is good, I prefer to do without. It certainly does not improve the functioning of the WMF if anything it polarises our community. As to evidence, the quality of what is purported to be evidence can be best qualified as utter crap and.
There is a difference between criticism and smear and certainly when criticism is spinned in order to assassinate the character of people one disagrees with or does not like, it makes sense for the people who have to know a lot of confidential information to function, to sign an agreement that gives them a moral obligation to remain on the straight and narrow. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers."
That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good, criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course, I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to support them)?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 17/05/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Some criticism is good some criticism is awful.
Exactly, which is why the non-disparagement agreement shouldn't simply ban all criticism. I have no problem with an agreement not to launch smear campaigns against the foundation, other board members, etc., but constructive criticism should always be encouraged, even if people don't like to hear it.
Hoi, I wholeheartedly agree on this one. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/05/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Some criticism is good some criticism is awful.
Exactly, which is why the non-disparagement agreement shouldn't simply ban all criticism. I have no problem with an agreement not to launch smear campaigns against the foundation, other board members, etc., but constructive criticism should always be encouraged, even if people don't like to hear it.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
"Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums, personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers."
That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good, criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course, I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to support them)?
Agreed. Some of this depends on who is evaluating what is derogatory or critical, or perhaps what constitutes "personal" criticism. Nevertheless, it seems difficult for board members who have a responsibility to communicate actively and openly with the community, particularly about controversial issues, to do so without running afoul of this paragraph.
It is also extraordinarily broad, in every way: "...affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior officers...", "3 years after" being on the board, &c. Can someone who thinks this statement is a good idea point to an existing document used/signed by organizational boards of directors that includes a similar anti-criticism clause?
SJ
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sometimes that criticism has to be public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course, I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to support them)?
A few questions. Does this apply only to criticism of candidates who are sitting board members, or should the other candidates also be subject to the same level of criticism?
Regarding the "evidence" you'd expect to accompany this criticism, what would you consider evidence on whether someone is suitable or unsuitable for board membership? That question to me goes well beyond simply whether they have done something wrong, or things that can be proved in some quasi-legal sense. It requires an evaluation and the exercise of judgment. When your boss gives you a performance review, or your professor gives your exam a grade, is it appropriate to expect that they "prove" the basis for their evaluation? That seems like a comparable situation.
Finally, in past elections board members have expressed opinions on candidates, and this has been criticized as interfering, unseemly, or an attempt to manipulate the election process. In light of the request for public criticism, how would you resolve this dilemma?
--Michael Snow
On 18/05/2008, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Sometimes that criticism has to be public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course, I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to support them)?
A few questions. Does this apply only to criticism of candidates who are sitting board members, or should the other candidates also be subject to the same level of criticism?
It applies to any candidates that are "directors, trustees, or senior officers" of "the Foundation or its affiliates". Other candidates don't fall under this agreement. Obviously, I would expect them to be treated with the same level of respect, but that's nothing to do with this agreement.
Regarding the "evidence" you'd expect to accompany this criticism, what would you consider evidence on whether someone is suitable or unsuitable for board membership? That question to me goes well beyond simply whether they have done something wrong, or things that can be proved in some quasi-legal sense. It requires an evaluation and the exercise of judgment. When your boss gives you a performance review, or your professor gives your exam a grade, is it appropriate to expect that they "prove" the basis for their evaluation? That seems like a comparable situation.
You make a good point. I think the important thing is that the accusations be specific enough for the accused to be able to defend themselves. Where possible, evidence should be provided, but you're right that that often isn't possible.
Finally, in past elections board members have expressed opinions on candidates, and this has been criticized as interfering, unseemly, or an attempt to manipulate the election process. In light of the request for public criticism, how would you resolve this dilemma?
Yeah, that's a problem, I know. I would expect board members to intervene only if there is something serious that they think the electorate needs to know. They should keep personal opinions to themselves and stick to facts.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org