So the confidentiality agreement which was passed seems like it will
represent
a regression in transparency. One of the things I pointed out in the last
controversy is that it wasn't clear that the non-executive session portion
of
the board meeting was actually confidential. This closes that gap with 1.b.
and 1.c defining as confidential "the Foundation’s nonpublic plans,
strategies,
budgets, or financial information;" and "nonpublic information shared in
connection with Board meetings, deliberations, and discussions, including
nonpublic communications on private mailing lists or private wikis"....
This effectively silences trustees from offering any information, lest they
befall what happened to James (who didn't even give any information to his
constituents, the community, only staff).
I can't see why you'd read it this way, but I think the Code of Conduct
document presents things in a different light: points 2,3 and 7 are
particularly relevant here.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_of_the_Board_of_Truste…
To my mind that sets a (welcome) expectation that Trustees will communicate
proactively about what is going on and also clarifies that Trustees are
free to speak in a personal capacity in many circumstances.
Chris