[Foundation-l] Recent firing?

[Nathan]

Geni, Thomas and MZMcbride suggest that the Foundation should announce
the dismissal of low-impact employees because otherwise the rumor mill
will make up stories. Perhaps you're right that the spread of rumors
is inevitable, but you don't seem to acknowledge your own role in
this. Even so, "Wikipedians will do what Wikipedians will do" is not
the best argument for immediately publishing sensitive employment
information, particularly when doing so may go against various
elements of employment law and/or simple best practice.

Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should
voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government
agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy,
and relates to why I mentioned "majority shareholder" in my initial
post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are
we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the
shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular
rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board
composition through elections. The information given to shareholders
of large, publicly owned corporations in the United States varies
widely, but generally speaking announcements are not made about the
hiring or departure of non-executive staff. Gregory cites a California
statute, but all governments are not equally open:

North Carolina:

<quote>
� 126‑22.� Personnel files not subject to inspection under � 132‑6.
Personnel files of State employees, former State employees, or
applicants for State employment shall not be subject to inspection and
examination as authorized by G.S. 132‑6. For purposes of this Article,
a personnel file consists of any information gathered by the
department, division, bureau, commission, council, or other agency
subject to Article 7 of this Chapter which employs an individual,
previously employed an individual, or considered an individual's
application for employment, or by the office of State Personnel, and
which information relates to the individual's application, selection
or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary,
suspension, performance evaluation forms, disciplinary actions, and
termination of employment wherever located and in whatever form.
Personnel files of former State employees who have been separated from
State employment for 10 or more years may be open to inspection and
examination except for papers and documents relating to demotions and
to disciplinary actions resulting in the dismissal of the employee.
(1975, c. 257, s. 1; 1977, c. 866, s. 9.)
<endquote>

Even California is not as permissive as you imply; see
http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pdf/sos_pra_guidelines.pdf (Records Exempt
from Public Disclosure) and
http://law.onecle.com/california/government/6254.html (Government Code
Section 6254 Paragraph C, describing the exemption of personnel
records from public disclosure).

In my opinion we should be informed about changes and actions that
affect the Foundation and its operations or substantially impact the
execution of its mission. This can include broad employment
information on some employees, as evidenced by the recent announced
departure of Jennifer Riggs. Maybe some people want the gory details
when anyone is fired; every office has people like that. But we're not
entitled to it, its poor manners to ask, and the Foundation is right
to decline such requests.

Nathan