Salvidrim wrote: Thanks for the links. :-) I started an index page at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements>. MZMcBride

I think it's necessary for the Foundation to both provide a copy and explain the necessity of the NDA for transparency and legal/ethical reasons, especially if they are asking volunteers to sign them. On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote:

I have not seen a copy of such NDAs myself. Where did you see that Bugzilla admins have to sign an NDA? As far as I know the relevant issue is that anyone who has access to private personal information of users needs to sign an agreement that they will not share that information. Whatever people are signing, it makes sense for the agreements themselves to be public. SJ On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:21 PM, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

On 6 March 2013 07:11, MZMcBride &lt;z(a)mzmcbride.com&gt; wrote: Staff contracts should effectively do this, though one might need to add NDAs for temporary contractors and consultants. (A personal statement, off the top of my head and without doing any research...) trustees should not be asked to sign a NDA as they should be free to act with their conscience for the long term benefit of the charity, which may include being free to publicly discuss negative material; hard to do if every email and document is covered by a NDA. Plus one expects trustees to have liability insurance, so unless there is gross misconduct, such a contract would never be enforceable if the trustee can claim to be acting within their role as a trustee (i.e. any civil claim for damages would effectively be the charity acting against itself). Wikimedia UK has a Trustee Code of Conduct, which ensures that trustees do not go "off the rails", and sets the behavioural expectations for prospective trustees rather nicely.[1] As well as a list of NDAs, it would be good to have an index of similar governance related codes (Trustee CoC, COI policies,[2] Financial reporting standards, et al). Links 1. https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trustee_Code_of_Conduct 2. https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest_policy Cheers, Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) faewik(a)gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

Just a quick note - while I was a fellow, I don't remember signing a NDA. I think people who did surveys had to (researchers, staff members, whatever) depending on the type of information they'd be gathering from people. Or, of course, the type of database you'd be given access too (i.e. it makes sense that maybe someone from analytics or grantmaking <depending on the role> would have to sign an NDA versus someone from the education program). Most organizations don't walk around releasing their NDA's. In fact, I don't know a single organization that would engage people to do so. And even though WMF is WMF, I don't think it's bad for it to hold onto some professional practices like that. It's common practice, in the States, for non and for profits to do. I always thought it was funny that NDA's existed at WMF just because of the openness, but, at the same time, it's industry standard and doesn't phase me. People should be glad WMF has one. -Sarah On 3/5/13 11:34 PM, K. Peachey wrote: -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Deryck Chan &lt;deryckchan(a)wikimedia.hk&gt;wrote;wrote: That's my understanding as well. I have a NDA with the WMF as a volunteer from a couple years ago to help with fundraising after I no longer contracted for the foundation in order to access the donations CRM. Frankly, I don't know if I can even log into that anymore...l -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

On 6 March 2013 22:11, Keegan wrote: Well, I believe it is pretty obvious that one has to sign an NDA when dealing with such information as that available from donors; the donor policy <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donor_policy/en> mentions names, addresses and phone numbers of our donors as well as "data visible on the checkques", so I guess it's pretty serious. I agree that one of the reasons for the existence of NDAs is to protect people's privacy, especially when one has access to such databases as the fundraising one; however, I can't see why a Bugzilla administrator would be required to sign an NDA -- is there anything secret when it comes to bugs in a GPL-licenced software? Or maybe there is a different reason for signing the NDA? Perhaps the admins can access some sensitive data other than IP addresses, etc., which volunteer checkusers and oversighters also have access to, without the need to sign anything? And just by the way (I think Sarah mentioned that): you just need to Google for "non-disclosure agreement" to find examples of organisations publicly sharing their NDAs--since it is no secret what is usually covered by such documents, why would the WMF not publish their NDA? -- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]

On 6 March 2013 22:11, Keegan wrote: Well, I believe it is pretty obvious that one has to sign an NDA when dealing with such information as that available from donors; the donor policy <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donor_policy/en> mentions names, addresses and phone numbers of our donors as well as "data visible on the checkques", so I guess it's pretty serious. I agree that one of the reasons for the existence of NDAs is to protect people's privacy, especially when one has access to such databases as the fundraising one; however, I can't see why a Bugzilla administrator would be required to sign an NDA -- is there anything secret when it comes to bugs in a GPL-licenced software? Or maybe there is a different reason for signing the NDA? Perhaps the admins can access some sensitive data other than IP addresses, etc., which volunteer checkusers and oversighters also have access to, without the need to sign anything? And just by the way (I think Sarah mentioned that): you just need to Google for "non-disclosure agreement" to find examples of organisations publicly sharing their NDAs--since it is no secret what is usually covered by such documents, why would the WMF not publish their NDA? -- Tomasz W. Kozłowski a.k.a. [[user:odder]]

I had to sign a NDA when I became a "Fellow" three years ago. It was mailed to me (not emailed) so I don't have a copy to refer to anymore. But from what I recall it was actually quite sensible and not "over-reaching". It talked about not publishing other staff's employment details if you happen to learn it, not sharing passwords etc. As other people have said in this thread there are several genuinely valid and good reasons for having a formal agreement. NDA is not inherently bad. On the other hand, I have been presented with a contract for some work with one of Chapters - that was clearly just copy/paste from a corporate organisation - that included NDA sections. It also included several amusingly irrelevant sections about "returning company equipment" and even an actually free-culture-incompatible section about how I should "assign all rights" to the organisation, including copyright and any patents "current and future" related to my work. Needless to say I didn't sign that. This being the case, I do agree there is a genuine need for a standardised and clear staff agreement - that is public - that the Chapters can use as a template and so everyone knows what the 'rules' are. -Liam/Wittylama (no longer a WMF Fellow) -- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

On 06/03/2013 23:00, MZMcBride wrote: "Disclosure period"? If you mean how long the party is bound by the agreement, then it'll depends on the exact agreement. For things like personally identifiable information, it will be forever which is kinda the point of having the NDA in the first place. KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Nathan wrote: It came up in the context of Bugzilla adminship for me. On rare occasion, I've also heard threats (or admonitions, I guess) from Wikimedia Foundation staff about colleagues possibly violating the non-disclosure agreement. This of course led to: what are the exact terms of the Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement? Though as I learn more about who is and isn't required to sign an NDA (combined with the lack of a public rationale for making any volunteer sign one), it's become more perplexing and intriguing. It's similar to the "Identification noticeboard" in some ways, which is almost equally entirely arbitrary about who is and isn't required to identify themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation. MZMcBride

I can't find a copy of mine (probably in storage somewhere) but I would assume mine was identical to Keegan's since we came in at the same time and did the same job. -Dan Dan Rosenthal On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Keegan Peterzell &lt;keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote:

On 7 March 2013 08:11, Keegan Peterzell &lt;keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: The NDA I signed while helping out with WMF fundraising stuff while I was visiting the office (which I think was around April 2010) did have non-disparagement stuff in it. I remember because I had a discussion with Mike Godwin (who was General Counsel at the time) about it and got him to narrow the scope of the clause before I would sign it (the version I signed said I couldn't use anything I learned while doing the fundraising work to disparage the WMF, rather than that I couldn't disparage them at all). If that bit had been removed from the standard NDA by 7 November 2011, then that's a very good thing IMHO.

On 9 March 2013 14:20, Tomasz W. Kozłowski &lt;odder.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: +1 - is the NDA itself under NDA or something? -d.

I'll share mine if legal says it's fine. ~ Keegan Sent mobile

On 07/03/13 10:00, MZMcBride wrote: As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the volunteer confidentiality and copyright agreement that prevents volunteers from disclosing the text of the agreement. So anyone who's signed it could just post it to meta, assuming they kept a copy. It's probably protected by copyright, but you can always post the relevant excerpt and claim fair use. -- Tim Starling

Benjamin Chen wrote: Thanks! I've updated <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NDA> accordingly. MZMcBride