[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Chad]

Absolutely brilliant. I couldn't think of a better way to form it myself.

Chad

On Jan 10, 2008 7:07 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>