[Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

[Ray Saintonge]

Michael R. Irwin wrote:

>Patrick, Brad wrote
>
>>The WP:OFFICE policy is still in its infancy.  People will challenge it
>>through their words and actions.  Everyone is entitled to his or her
>>opinion.  But I believe everyone who believes in the future success and
>>sustainability of the project must also recognize the need for judicious
>>use of confidentiality at the Foundation level.  
>>    
>>
>Personally I do not see any need for a non profit public foundation 
>dedicated to legally publishing free information created by the public 
>at large; and located physically in the United States of America; to be 
>engaged in excessive secrecy.  Certainly employee social security 
>numbers should be kept private in keeping with U.S. laws.  The need for 
>secret or private communications tools such as restricted email lists, 
>non public meetings, etc. escapes me.  
>
While I believe in more openness, I don't think that your prosecutorial 
tone is warranted.  Some confidentiality is needed, but those who 
suppress information with inadequate explanation have to accept the 
consequence that people will complain loudly.

>Certainly I would advise you to 
>comply strictly with all provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act when called 
>upon by warrant to cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities, unless you 
>enjoy small cubicle environments. 
>
That's remarkably inconsistent of you.  You begin by complaining about 
excessive secrecy then contradict yourself by supporting a piece of 
totalitarian trash that would impose just that, notably in forbidding 
people who have received information requests from letting anyone know 
that they have received such requests.  When it comes to circumventing 
laws the U.S. Patriot Act is fair game.

>It has been my experience that often lawyers cite specific sections of 
>U.S. or State code or regulations or even specific phrases or case law 
>when informing lay people of their opinions regarding legal matters.
>
Not always.  Most speak from authority and are willing to exploit that 
logical fallacy to its fullest.  If you demand verifiability it comes at 
a price.

>Perhaps if you or the office were to write up some specific 
>recommendations regarding how the community or the Wikimedia Foundation 
>or your client could avoid legal liabilities by actually complying with 
>the applicable laws rather than simply recommending that the Foundation 
>get secretive about its "private" matters we could avoid some legal 
>risks in the future?
>
Clarifying the parameters of confidentiality would be a worthwhile 
debate.  Simply doing things because one is in a position to know that 
it should be done in secret is not enough.  Even the most trusted people 
need to be accountable.

>I suggest the community members present on the Foundation-L mailing list 
>consider a placebo vote regarding whether the Wikimedia Foundation 
>should issue an apology to Eric and reimburse him for the long distance 
>calls necessary to recover his editing priveleges.
>
"Placebo vote" sounds like an interesting concept.  I interpret such a 
vote as one designed to make people feel good without accomplishing 
anything. :-)

>>The Foundation officers
>>and Board members have a fiduciary obligation to the organization, as I
>>do as a lawyer for my client.
>>
>>Certain members of the community (and notably, not Mr. Moeller) have
>>expressed dissatisfaction about WP:OFFICE and its use.  There is a
>>healthy debate yet to be had about it.  We can have that debate, but I
>>also have to make clear that the Foundation's obligations are greater
>>than loyalty to any one user.  Even someone with the history of
>>contributions to Mr. Moeller.
>>    
>>
>Are the Wikimedia Foundation's obligations greater than loyalty to a 
>single founder or stacked Board of Directors?
>
>In the event of a conflict do you work for the stacked Board, Jimmy 
>Wales, or the Foundation?  Is your client the stacked Board, Jimmy 
>Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation?  What is the legal signature on 
>checks sent to your office in response to invoices?  Does U.S. and/or 
>Florida law distinguish between individuals in offices and the 
>organization itself?
>
This sounds like cross-examination to me.

>Does the Wikimedia Foundation have any fiduciary responsibilities to the 
>contributing public and the public at large under U.S. law?  Are these 
>responsibilities defined exclusively by U.S. law or are the public 
>solicitations used to gather public donations considered somewhat 
>influential or binding in Florida State or U.S. Federal  courts?
>  
>
The public accountability of a broadly funded multinational organization 
is a seriously difficult question.  It comes as no surprise that legal 
and other professional expertise hired by mangement will support 
positions favorable to management.  Membership in The Foundation is very 
weakly defined, and is mostly based on being an editor.  An early 
provision would have had one board member elected by a paid members, but 
that has never been developed.  Membership rights and powers are 
probably as strong as the rights of minority shareholders in for-profit 
corporations. 

It's a no-brainer to say that Florida corporate law applies to the 
operation of the Foundation, because that is where it is incorporated.  
The tax law of each separate state controls the right to solicit funds 
in each state; that can cause a registration nightmare.  While the 
Foundation can solicit foreign donations, these will not normally be tax 
deductible for those foreign residents.  Tax deductibility in those 
countries requires, among other things, some kind of administrative 
organization in that country.  This is often accompanied by rules to 
prohibit the export of donated funds.

I am often highly critical of the current management format, but I can 
also see enough dangers in a totally democratic system to be wary of 
such a model.

Ec