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

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 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.

Thanks Erik. I wholly agree with the general principle of using common
sense and being civil to one another, and of course remaining truthful
and professional at all times.

Of course, since we are a rather unique organization, some rather
unique questions arise. Such as, what's a "company affiliate"? Does
that cover any community members, or is there a more formal definition
implied? If the former, there could hypothetically be issues since
many community members and Foundation employees also happen to be
personal friends; and I would think we'd want to be careful about a
potential restriction on private speech between friends. Furthermore,
does a blog count as "communications with other media"? What counts as
being "derogatory"? (I share Cimon's concern that this could conflict
with the whistle-blowing policy). Etc.  If there are legal definitions
for all these terms (such as disparagement) are they referenced by
inclusion? There seems to be a lot of well-intentioned vagueness here,
with rather alarmingly far-reaching consequences for the the
individuals involved (three years thereafter, half again as long as
the WMF has existed at all).

I suppose I was under the impression that true slander or libel was
generally legally actionable anyway. If so, then what further actions
does this policy attempt to prevent? I find personal attacks
completely offensive and of no value -- but at the same time, I would
very much like the Foundation's employees to be able to (politely,
civilly, and in a non-personally disparaging way) call things like
they see them, if they find themselves at odds with a general WMF
decision. Like any community members, they should be able to make
their opinions respectfully known in public fora. I would hate to
think that there was even the potential for this being infringed upon
for the sake of -- what, precisely? Keeping our public image clean?
Legislating civility? I very much hope that there is a crystal-clear
understanding among all parties that constructive criticism is still
acceptable.

-- phoebe