Thomas Dalton writes:
If you consider all (personal) criticism to be an attack, then clearly you're going to have a problem with it.
It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal criticism or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the ones who ultimately will interpret this provision. That said, I think it is entirely possible to criticize someone's actions without attacking their character (for example). The notion that the only way to express disagreement with someone is to criticize them personally seems to me to be dead certain to lead to personal animosity.
(really, I struggle to see how you can criticise anything other than a person or group of people - criticising what they do, rather than them, is just semantics).
This doesn't strike me as a struggle, and I disagree that this is just semantics. I certainly know how to express disagreement without personally criticizing someone, and I think this posting of mine actually stands as a demonstration of how to do this.
--Mike
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
If you consider all (personal) criticism to be an attack, then clearly you're going to have a problem with it.
It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal criticism or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the ones who ultimately will interpret this provision.
What recourse does the board have against a board member that violates this agreement? Expulsion from the board? A majority of the board already has the right to remove any board member, with or without cause.
What recourse does the board have against a *former* board member that violates this agreement?
As stands the agreement is far too ambiguous. At least fix up the ambiguities so it says what you claim it means, and get back to us. One thing that I'd insist upon personally is that the agreement makes it clear that it does not restrict sharing of non-confidential *information*, but merely certain means of sharing that non-confidential information. Maybe that line (slightly tweaked) could even be included.
Of course, I personally wouldn't enter into a confidentiality agreement without adequate consideration, but I guess I can see how others might disagree with me on that point.
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anthony writes:
I'd say you're going about that all wrong, then.
Thanks for your help.
I'm not trying to help you, Mike, as you haven't presented me with a problem worthy of my help. I'm trying to help Florence, who asked for feedback on this agreement.
I think the Board is capable of reaching a consensus about what constitutes the sort of personal attack or personal criticism out to be out-of-bounds. Like all general statements of principle (see, e.g., the U.S. Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the provisions of this Statement will be determined by the Board in application.
This isn't structured as a general statement of principle. A board resolution stating that the board does not engage in personal attacks (against anyone, why restrict it to other board members and higher-up WMF staff) would be a completely different.
But that does bring up another point. General principles apply to everyone. If personal attacks are the only things you're trying to restrict from the non-disparagement clause, why limit the restriction to only certain people? Do you think it's OK, for instance, for Sue Gardner to personally attack Danny Wool, calling him a "disgruntled former employee" on CNET? Would you consider that a personal attack? Was it ethical because you think Danny attacked someone first, or because Danny wasn't a current employee, or because he wasn't high enough in the organization before leaving? Or should Sue apologize for attacking the person instead of attacking the message? Am I now attacking Sue? I did mention her name, after all. I *am* *criticizing* her actions. Is it wrong for us to even be discussing this? Should we engage in cryptic allusions via hypothetical situations which certain people know how to decode and others don't?
Why is it that I and some others are "chilled" from fully contributing on this list? It's not so much that I'm worried about being put on moderation. I really don't mind that. In fact, in some ways it's an advantage - I get to "unsend" certain posts, and anything that does get through I know at least was deemed worthy by at least one other participant. I'm "chilled" from contributing on this list because I know if I say certain things I'm going to get this barrage of public personal attacks calling me a troll and asking me to leave. And this is not just from random people, either. One of your current board members (see, that's me being cryptic) has been one of the nastiest launchers of the attacks.
I'm all for developing a set of principles, as a community, for reducing the personal attacks. But I think you're going about this all wrong. If you want my help, then let's throw out the non-disparagement clause in the current agreement, and work together as a community to come up with a set of general principles that we *all* can agree on and that we can apply to *everyone*.
Anthony
On 18/05/2008, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thomas Dalton writes:
If you consider all (personal) criticism to be an attack, then clearly you're going to have a problem with it.
It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal criticism or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the ones who ultimately will interpret this provision. That said, I think it is entirely possible to criticize someone's actions without attacking their character (for example). The notion that the only way to express disagreement with someone is to criticize them personally seems to me to be dead certain to lead to personal animosity.
Expressing disagreement with someone involves saying, in some form or other "I think you are wrong." That is criticism, and it's of a person, thus it's personal criticism. Perhaps we're using different definitions of "criticise"? (In addition to different spellings ;))
(really, I struggle to see how you can criticise anything other than a person or group of people - criticising what they do, rather than them, is just semantics).
This doesn't strike me as a struggle, and I disagree that this is just semantics. I certainly know how to express disagreement without personally criticizing someone, and I think this posting of mine actually stands as a demonstration of how to do this.
I take responsibility for my actions, therefore if someone says something against my actions I see it as saying something against me. I know other people don't see it that way, but I do.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org