No subject

during their terms on the Board and for three years thereafter, they
shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any
customer, client or supplier of the Foundation, or any of the
Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions on community mailing lists,
blogs, or other community forums, personally criticize, ridicule or
make any statement that personally disparages or is personally
derogatory of the Foundation or its affiliates or any of their
respective directors, trustees, or senior officers.

To:
during their terms on the Board and for SIX MONTHS thereafter, they
shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any
customer, client or supplier of the Foundation, or any of the
Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions on community mailing lists,
blogs, or other community forums, personally criticize, ridicule or
make any statement that personally disparages any of their respective
directors, trustees, or senior officers.

This prevents personal disruption, and perhaps public criticism of the
sort of thing that needs to be publicly criticised--it's basically the
extension of WP:NPA to the board.

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification, Mike.  I suppose "ridicule" is also
> something that has to be done personally.
>
> I am curious about the extension of this clause to all affiliates and their
> top tier of staff...   That also seems like it's quite strong, but perhaps
> the definition of 'affiliate' is similarly nuanced?  SJ
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thomas Dalton writes:
>>
>> >> "Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for
>> >> three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with
>> >> the
>> >> press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the
>> >> Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions
>> >> on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums,
>> >> personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally
>> >> disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its
>> >> affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior
>> >> officers."
>> >>
>> >> That explicitly bans all public criticism.
>>
>> That is untrue.  Note the use of the word "personally" (it appears
>> three times).  The idea here is actually to *encourage constructive
>> criticism outside of personal attacks*. The idea here is not to make
>> someone who is selected for the Board the victim of personal attacks
>> from other members of the Board during their term of service and for a
>> limited period thereafter.
>>
>> If this guarantee is in place, one result is properly that everyone on
>> the Board will feel free to criticize Board or staff operations,
>> programs, and initiatives without being the object of personal
>> attacks, at least from within the Board or staff, for doing so.
>>
>> What's more, the obligation has a definite time limit -- if you're a
>> Board member and you want to write a tell-all book about what a
>> terrible person another Board member is, you can do so, but you have
>> to wait a while before selling your gossip.  So, in short, you can be
>> constructively critical regardless of this provision, and you then can
>> engage in personal attacks after a a decent interval.
>>
>> I should add that my own obligations as an attorney for the Foundation
>> actually exceed those imposed on the Board.  I don't find my attorney-
>> client obligations particularly onerous, and I feel free to give the
>> Board and staff my critical advice, even though I'm generally
>> ethically barred from writing a tell-all book about their
>> personalities or posting personal criticisms on Foundation-l.
>> (Believe me when I tell you that the gossip is less interesting than
>> you probably imagine.) In my view, Board members are holding fiduciary
>> positions -- positions of trust -- so they have legal and ethical
>> obligations that in some ways are similar to attorney-client privilege
>> and even similar to physician-patient privilege (as Hippocrates
>> stated, one must first do no harm).
>>
>> Now, you may believe it ought to be appropriate for Board members to
>> attack each other personally, to attack the staff, and to attack you,
>> but I hold them and myself to a higher standard, and I don't think
>> it's unreasonable to set expectations for mature, considered behavior
>> that extends to constructive criticism but stops short of destructive
>> conflict.
>>
>> Is it your belief, Thomas, that as a lawyer working for the Foundation
>> I ought to be able to issue public personal attacks on Florence,
>> Jimmy, Kat, Domas, Stuart, Frieda, and Jan-Bart?
>>
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG