[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> It has been mentionned several times that information provided on 
> private lists was leaked publicly.
>
> Arguably, private lists are populated by individuals who care about the 
> projects, who want to help, and who are trusted.
>
> Once information starts leaking, it may imply three things
>
> 1) There is information worth being known.
> It is possibly fine. Some information is good to share. Other 
> information is best kept confidential, at least for a while.
>
> 2) Trusted people feel that this information should be public, or at 
> least in part more public than it actually is.
> This suggests that the core community may not fully agree on where the 
> treshold for confidentiality is located. Another interpretation is that 
> they feel confidentiality would normally be fine, but object with the 
> decisions taken. So, it may be either protest against the process, or 
> against the result.
>
> 3) They give info to third parties, instead of asking if they can 
> publish, or instead of forwarding the information themselves, which 
> suggest they fear backslash, and that freedom of speech is losing a bit 
> of ground.
>
> I found interesting that the only action points suggested have been to 
> 1) decrease information proposed to private lists or to 2) decrease 
> number of people on the private lists or to 3) create more private 
> private lists.
>
> No one has suggested to actually look at reasons why there are leaks.
I'm inclined to rely on the old maxim, "Don't attribute to malice what 
you can attribute to ignorance.  In many situations I don't think that 
the intentionalities are as clear as what you perceive them to be. I 
don't completely discount free speech crusaders or malicious moles, but 
I would look for easier solutions first.

I've suggested a two-prong approach before:
    1. Make sure that *all* information which should be made public is 
made public in a timely manner.
    2. Have very clear definitions of what kind of things should be 
confidential.

I agree that the superficial proposals made to you do not really address 
the problems.  You can't expect people to protect confidentiality if 
they don't know what it is.  Remember too that a lot of the Wikipedia 
activists are relatively young, and have not had the experience of 
dealing with business confidentiality; it needs to be spelled out.

Transparency is important to maintaining confidentiality.  That may seem 
paradoxical, but it is essential to building the confidence that the 
Board is acting in the interests of the community, however you want to 
define 'community'.

When the Board appointed Erik to his paid deputy director's position it 
created a political disaster for itself.  Sure, you might say that it 
was Sue's call, but the Board always has, or at least should have, the 
power to veto any specific hire.  It becomes a responsibility when the 
political optics are wrong.  The storm that arose when it was thought 
that Danny might win a seat on the Board should have been a warning.  
Neither Danny nor Erik have been strangers to controversy.  Even after 
the hiring the Board could have mitigated the damage by adopting a 
six-month waiting period before a Board member could join the staff, 
with the six-months to start from the anticipated end of the elected 
term so that it cannot be accelerated by an early resignation.  When 
someone is elected for a specific term the electorate expect him to 
finish that term.  When these kinds of hirings happen, they leave the 
impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is no transparency, and 
perception is everything.

While I have your attention . . . :-)
(I know.  I have this fault of thinking too long before I say things.)

I have supported the idea of a Wikicouncil from the very beginning, and 
I'm sure that somewhere in the bowels of the mailing lists there remains 
a record of my suggestion for bicameral governance back when the first 
by-laws were being discussed.  The question of how to determine 
membership on such a council will remain vexed for a long time, and I 
think it will only be settled after a long period of trial and error.  
In the early stages I would make the membership fairly open ended, with 
just enough restriction on membership to keep it from becoming 
unmanageable.  Both appointive and democratic methods for choosing 
members have their own problems. I would suggest that the first members 
be appointed from among the most senior and most experienced 
wikimedians; they could draft provisional policies.  A first in-person 
meeting could take place in Alexandria.  Would financial encouragement 
to get them there be any less worthwile than getting the advisory board 
to Taipei?

One of the first responsibilities that I would attach to the Wikicouncil 
would be joint responsibility for the by-laws.  Changes to the by-laws 
would need to be passed by both the Board and the Council.  This would 
allow the Board to examine changes from a business perspective, and the 
Council to view them from a community perspective.

Ec