[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 13:20:52 UTC 2007
You have not been paying attention have you? As the WMF has a non-disclosure
agreement, it was not at liberty to do such a thing. It is bad enough that
Carolyn has to go through all this. It is bad enough that people cannot get
it into their head that people are damaged in this way. It is not a zero sum
game, people hurt as a consequence.
With Jimmy personally guaranteeing that there will be no ill effects for our
precious organisation. With people imploring us to stop bitching because the
pertinent details cannot and will not be made available you cannot stop.
Why, what is your rationale to go on? What do you hope to achieve? Yes, this
is a rhetorical question !
I am truly sorry for Carolyn, she worked hard when she worked for us. At the
time I was told that it made a difference to have her. Now, with her sadly
being in this stark spot light, I wish her well and hope that this episode
will soon move into the obscurity where it belongs.
On Dec 15, 2007 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We did not have the information in the Register article until they
> > actually ran the article. I was stunned when I read it. Therefore, it
> > was impossible for us to "break the story" ourselves.
> They must have given you a general idea of the story when they were
> interviewing Mike. You can't ask "Were you aware of Mrs. Doran's
> criminal record?" without revealing the fact that she has a criminal
> record... As soon as Mike was asked that question the foundation
> should have done their own investigation and then broken the story. It
> would have taken a couple of hours to get enough information together
> to spoil The Register's scoop.
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l