[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Ray Saintonge]

Birgitte SB wrote:
> Granting that there is a lack of clarity on the sort of criticism is forbidden here, it seems to me this would effectively solidify the sort of coded information that is shared with the community currently. Where silence is the new criticism in a message praising specific people and what they have done.  Where what part is *not* commented on is the most important information in an email about a proposal. I think it is all a bit silly, as I can decipher these things pretty well. But it is probably rather frustrating for those who cannot and likely leads to unnecessary misunderstandings. 
>
> Overall I don't think it a good idea, but I don't see it being all that far from the status quo.  I don't think it will stop the gossip which is the real problem.  I imagine people will still rant and and rave about each other in backwater chat rooms because it is the nature the insular groups to generate a false sense of privacy and human nature relieve frustration by disparaging others.  Overall I think it will slightly inhibit public communication to the community and have no effect on the semi-private communications which are the real problem for WMF.  Mostly though I think the communication with the community has been negatively impacted by the whole "one voice" nonsense to a degree that makes this policy a bucket of water in the ocean. Fighting this policy on the grounds of "community communications" seems to me to be like splinting the broken arm of someone who is bleeding to death from their leg. A little irrelevant.
We seem to agree significantly in these matters, but if the only medical 
equipment available is arm splints that's what they're going to use.

Policies regarding disparagement, confidentiality or conflict of 
interest do not work unless those terms are clearly defined in the first 
place.  Some kinds of issues must necessarily be discussed in camera. 
There is a  need to define exactly what that includes, and in the 
interest of maintaining a transparent operation anything not on that 
list is public.

A controversial policy with no consequences creates more heat than 
light.  It is one thing to have Board members sign an agreement, but it 
is an exercise in futility when that agreement extends three years 
beyond one's term of office without any idea about what will happen if a 
person is found in breach.

Ec