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_Trustee...
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