[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[Florence Devouard]

Birgitte SB wrote:
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 5/21/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I agree with that.  I was just trying to focus on the effect the policy would have on the wider community rather than the trustees who might sign it.  So I was ignoring the reasons why it might be a bad idea for individual to sign such an agreement. 
> 
> However I definitely understand why someone would not want to sign such a thing for their own part.
In reality such individual concerns probably just become a starting 
point for a negotiation.
Offer a proposal of what you would be willing to sign and then receive a 
counter proposal.
And find the line where WMF agrees that trying to oust a board member or 
disqualify an election winner will bring more
trouble than the differences between the drafts. And that is the arena 
of lawyers not the peanut gallery.
> 
> Birgitte SB
> 

Hmmm. Agree.
I actually forwarded to Sue a sample of a document I felt roughly 
confortable with, and it seems that Mike used that document to improve 
the second draft significantly (which is cool). However, there was no 
significant change on the non disparagement part and the COI suddenly 
appeared expanded.
So, I am all for your suggest Birgitte, but I can not really comment 
from draft 1 to draft 2 if no significant change has been made.

Also, as Ec points out completely properly, besides the lack of clarify 
to describe what disparagement means, there is no clarification of what 
would happen IF the agreement was breached.

In a rather humourous point, this is something I noted and told Mike 
some months ago: similarly, the COI policy requires from members to 
disclose information, but there is no outlined procedure to deal in case 
of an abuse.

I do not think the agreement is the arena of lawyers. I am no lawyer 
myself, I do not have the money to pay a lawyer to provide me 
counselling, and still, I would be the one to sign. When a HUMAN must 
sign a document involving himself and his family, for several years, I 
think it is not only a lawyer business...

Ant