[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

[Erik Moeller]

On 4/11/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  It is not only a question of freedom of speech, but also of serving the
>  best interests. It may be that the best interest is to "shut up" and
>  always appear as a united team. Generally, I think that's the best.
>  But there are also times when it is best to speak up, and no board
>  member should fear being sued if he speaks up.

There's a difference between "speaking out" and making insinuations
and personal attacks. The non-disparagement agreement begins an
important conversation about this difference, and leads it towards a
social and legal agreement. I'm sure you agree that none of us have
the desire to trash talk each other in public; when we criticize, we
want to be judicious and fair, and we want to be treated in the same
way. The agreement puts this into clearer language that we can all
commit to. This is the relevant section from the agreement signed by
staff members:

- begin quote -
NON-DISPARAGEMENT AND CONSIDERATION. Both Employer and Employee
agree that the free and open exchange of ideas and information among employees,
contractors, and agents of the Foundation is to be encouraged.
Employee agrees that, during the term of employment and for three
years thereafter, Employee shall not, in any
communications with the press or other media, or any customer, client
or supplier of
company, or any of company affiliates, ridicule or make any statement
that personally
disparages or is derogatory of Employer or its affiliates or any of
their respective directors,
trustees, or senior officers. Additionally, and in consideration of
Employee's covenants in
this agreement, no directory senior officer of Employer or member of
the Board of Trustees
of the Employer will, during the same time period, personally
criticize, ridicule or make any
statement that personally disparages or is derogatory of employee.
- end quote -

I think that's a reasonable definition. I'm sure it could be improved
further. But we should not excuse malicious attacks as a "free speech
issue". They are not; they are simply inappropriate behavior that
nobody associated with the organization should engage in. Furthermore,
as has been pointed out, this agreement works both ways; it protects
both parties to it.

Having agreements like this in place, beyond stimulating conversation,
is also a matter of organizational scalability. We went from zero to
15 employees in three years; the Board itself has expanded and may
continue to do so. We're not a small club that can be run primarily by
internal consensus -- policies, procedures and agreements exist to
mitigate risks.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate