[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel Matters

David Goodman dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 13:31:22 UTC 2007

Given that the Register was going to break the story, would it not
have been appropriate to have broken it ourselves first--or given also
an interview to some other publication? Or at least be prepared to do
so simultaneously, by at least posting on slashdot.

This was not a good way to handle negative information   As well as
making sure we are legal, we should have perhaps consulted someone who
knows PR.

On 12/14/07, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Nathan writes:
> > It seems as though it would have benefited the organization to
> > have simply stated at the time of separation between WMF and Ms. Doran
> > that there were personnel issues which the Board was bound to
> > disclose.
> We could not have stated such a thing because it would have been
> legally incorrect to do so.
> > Additionally, a heads up about imminent disclosure would also have
> > been in order given the fact that you consented to an interview with
> > the Register (of all publications) and presumably were aware that the
> > story would be published.
> You may be sure that the question of whether to respond at all to the
> Register was fully discussed internally.  Part of the problem here, I
> think, is that you are presuming we knew enough about what the
> Register was going to write to provide you with adequate information
> to respond to the story.  I believe, for various reasons, that this
> was not the case.  Please believe me when I say that I prefer to
> disclose pretty much everything, and that I prefer that responses to
> attacks of this sort come from the community in general rather than
> from me in particular.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list