On 29 February 2016 at 20:43, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
So please, let's stop pretending those two words mean the same thing.
They don't mean the same thing at all. But would you really dispute the statement that WMF leaders should be both transparent AND honest?
Transparency is a fundamental WMF value.
Nobody here is talking about vendor agreements; at least I am not. I have no problem whatsoever with your scenario. If the WMF enters into an umbrella agreement or business deal with Google or whoever, then that is something the community should know. If the WMF gets computer hardware at a preferential rate, absolutely no one is interested in that.
Because, Andreas, I do not want the Wikimedia Foundation to commit suicide. On what basis do you say, with complete confidence, that the basis of the issue is NOT a contract, or a legal agreement, or a human resources issue - all of which will likely require some degree of non-transparency? For example - if the focus of all this excitement is a human resources issue, there are very, very strict regulations about what can and cannot be public. It's why there is an "executive session" at every board meeting - because human resource issues involving identifiable persons MUST not be publicly discussed.
I cannot for the life of me imagine what Google sells that the WMF would be interested in buying, so I'm finding your example a bit weird. And unfortunately, there are indeed enough people around here who are so determined to have total transparency that they *would* believe that failure to publicly report that the WMF had received computer hardware at a preferential rate was *failing to be transparent.*
So yes, I do dispute that WMF leaders must always be both transparent and honest. Honest, I'll go for - although as we're pretty clearly seeing in this situation, there's a pretty wide divergence between what different leaders consider honesty. But not transparent. I don't want them reporting personal human resources issues or other legally confidential issues publicly - if for no other reason than they'll be slapped with lawsuits that would be a terrible, terrible waste of our donor's money.
RIsker/Anne