[Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

[effe iets anders]

besides the whole lawyer issue, there is also a more fundamental
issue. How much are you prepared to give up. I think that ought to be
discussed first, before ending up with lawyers.

br, lodewijk

2008/5/22 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb op yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/21/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 op yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9 op yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility
>> To: foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 4:10 PM
>> Birgitte SB wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 5/21/08, Ray Saintonge
>> <saintonge op 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...
>>
>
> Just to clarify (in case anyone is confused) I would classify the back and forth negotiations about the ways which an individual trustee is willing to bind herself as within the arena of lawyers, leaving plenty of other things for the peanut gallery to comment on.
>
> Frankly Anthere, if I were being asked to sign something like this I *would* retain a lawyer.  Granted I am much more cautious than most people, but I would not consider signing such a contract without the advice of a lawyer whose duty is to look after my interests.  It would be nice if people didn't have pay lawyers to advise them, but it is not worth the risk, in my opinion, to sign something just because you trust that the guy who wrote it is a good lawyer that will protect his client (and the client is not *you*).
>
> I am not qualified to evaluate such a document.  I trust Mike to do a great job looking out for WMF, but the interests of the WMF are not necessarily the interests of her trustees nor should they be. If I were a trustee and the WMF presented me with this draft (ignoring for this thought exercise all the community and value issues worth discussing) I would say, "Thank you I will pass this on to my lawyer."  If WMF tried to discuss it I would say "Here's my lawyer's number."  And after the lawyers hashed out something I was advised by my own personal lawyer to sign, I would sign it.  I agree that signing such a document is serious and would involve me and my family for years, so I would take it seriously.
> Plus I wouldn't want to risk poisoning any working relationships by taking on the dirty work of protecting myself. So that means leaving it in the arena lawyers in my book.  But that is me, and I'm paranoid about signing my name. :)
>
> And I'm not a trustee, so I won't have lose sleep over how to pay the lawyer ;)
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>