[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Anthony]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>
>>  If you consider all (personal) criticism to be an
>> attack, then clearly you're going to have a problem with it.
>
> It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal criticism
> or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board
> members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the
> ones who ultimately will interpret this provision.

What recourse does the board have against a board member that violates
this agreement?  Expulsion from the board?  A majority of the board
already has the right to remove any board member, with or without
cause.

What recourse does the board have against a *former* board member that
violates this agreement?

As stands the agreement is far too ambiguous.  At least fix up the
ambiguities so it says what you claim it means, and get back to us.
One thing that I'd insist upon personally is that the agreement makes
it clear that it does not restrict sharing of non-confidential
*information*, but merely certain means of sharing that
non-confidential information.  Maybe that line (slightly tweaked)
could even be included.

Of course, I personally wouldn't enter into a confidentiality
agreement without adequate consideration, but I guess I can see how
others might disagree with me on that point.

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Anthony writes:
>> I'd say you're going about that all wrong, then.
>
> Thanks for your help.

I'm not trying to help you, Mike, as you haven't presented me with a
problem worthy of my help.  I'm trying to help Florence, who asked for
feedback on this agreement.

> I think the Board is capable of reaching a consensus about what
> constitutes the sort of personal attack or personal criticism out to
> be out-of-bounds.  Like all general statements of principle (see,
> e.g., the U.S. Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights), the provisions of this Statement will be determined by the
> Board in application.

This isn't structured as a general statement of principle.  A board
resolution stating that the board does not engage in personal attacks
(against anyone, why restrict it to other board members and higher-up
WMF staff) would be a completely different.

But that does bring up another point.  General principles apply to
everyone.  If personal attacks are the only things you're trying to
restrict from the non-disparagement clause, why limit the restriction
to only certain people?  Do you think it's OK, for instance, for Sue
Gardner to personally attack Danny Wool, calling him a "disgruntled
former employee" on CNET?  Would you consider that a personal attack?
Was it ethical because you think Danny attacked someone first, or
because Danny wasn't a current employee, or because he wasn't high
enough in the organization before leaving?  Or should Sue apologize
for attacking the person instead of attacking the message?  Am I now
attacking Sue?  I did mention her name, after all.  I *am*
*criticizing* her actions.  Is it wrong for us to even be discussing
this?  Should we engage in cryptic allusions via hypothetical
situations which certain people know how to decode and others don't?

Why is it that I and some others are "chilled" from fully contributing
on this list?  It's not so much that I'm worried about being put on
moderation.  I really don't mind that.  In fact, in some ways it's an
advantage - I get to "unsend" certain posts, and anything that does
get through I know at least was deemed worthy by at least one other
participant.  I'm "chilled" from contributing on this list because I
know if I say certain things I'm going to get this barrage of public
personal attacks calling me a troll and asking me to leave.  And this
is not just from random people, either.  One of your current board
members (see, that's me being cryptic) has been one of the nastiest
launchers of the attacks.

I'm all for developing a set of principles, as a community, for
reducing the personal attacks.  But I think you're going about this
all wrong.  If you want my help, then let's throw out the
non-disparagement clause in the current agreement, and work together
as a community to come up with a set of general principles that we
*all* can agree on and that we can apply to *everyone*.

Anthony