[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Mike Godwin]

Anthony writes:

> And why should the board members
> include personal attacks/criticisms of outside parties in the first
> place?  Your other comments have clarified that the agreement of
> employees is separate from the agreement among board members.  So why
> should personal attacks/criticisms of anyone but current/former board
> members be included in the agreement?

The idea here is that no one who does business with the Foundation  
should be subject to a public personal attack from Board members as  
the consequence of having done so.  *This doesn't mean that the Board  
members can't criticize such an entity in other ways, and it certainly  
doesn't mean anything with regard to the community, which continues to  
be able to launch any personal attack it wishes.* Please note my  
emphasis of the preceding sentence.  In short, it obligates us to  
treat other entities professionally and with respect even when we  
disagree.

>> That's incorrect. The Foundation agrees to not to personally  
>> criticize
>> a Board member "during the same time period," which is defined  
>> earlier
>> in the provision as "during their terms on the Board and for three
>> years thereafter."  The provision defines a coterminous mutual
>> obligation.
>>
> Touche.  Upon rereading this, you are indeed correct.

Thanks.

>> As to your suggested changes in wording, feel free to make those
>> recommendations to the Board. Again, it's worth keeping in mind that
>> the drafting of this Statement was done at Board request.
>>
> That definitely surprises me.  How exactly did the Board make such a  
> request?

I think this question is best directed to Board members themselves and  
not to me.



--Mike