[Foundation-l] Foundation Discretion Regarding Personnel
mnemonic at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 14:09:24 UTC 2007
Thomas Dalton writes:
> 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
Without revealing an *allegation* that is unsubstantiated by anything
other than a Register reporter's willingness to make it over the
phone. If you're saying the Register is a reliable source, all of a
sudden, you hold it in much higher opinion than I do.
> 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.
Criminal background checks take at least a day, and possibly a few
days, to do properly, at least in the United States. The allegations
made in the Register story would have taken significant time for us to
confirm or refute. (I assume, without knowing more, that most of this
stuff was simply handed to Cade Metz by someone else who spent
significant time trying to put a scandal together.) Plus, I don't
think we should be in the business of trying to beat the Register in
publishing a thinly sourced, largely unsubstantiated story. And,
finally, it bears repeating that we have legal considerations that
prevent us from discussing most personnel matters, much less
publishing stories about them.
> If it's common practice to make agreements which don't benefit you in
> any way, then it's not me that is seriously deficient...
Confidentiality agreements at the end of a term of employment
generally benefit both parties (that's what makes them contractually
binding), and are quite commonplace.
> I've been paying attention, and I've not seen any reason given for
> signing an NDA that forbids you from revealing that your former COO
> was a convicted felon.
You are mischaracterizing the nature of the agreement here. You're
also, I think, assuming we had a lot of advance knowledge that we did
not in fact have -- not even after talking with the Register.
More information about the foundation-l