Board statement of responsibility

[Florence Devouard-3]

Hello,

Some time ago, the board received a new draft of its future "board
statement of responsibility".

This follows the document presented to the board in April, which was
opposed by Kat and I.

I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise
that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with
attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks
ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to
provide your input.

I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far
exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document
represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the
organization and individual board members.

In particularly, it includes
* a non-disparagement agreement (with widely different appreciations on
what disparagement is)
* a very much extended conflict of interest agreement, which would
require a board member to get authorization to do certain activities (as
opposed to merely informing the board and not voting on resolutions when
there is a perceived or real conflict)

It does not include
* a statement of understanding from the board member, regarding mission
and values

Your feedback is welcome, on these three points, or others (present or
missing). I would like in particular to read opinions of candidates to
the board on such matters.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statement


Best

Florence


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise
> that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with
> attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks
> ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to
> provide your input.
>
> I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far
> exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document
> represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the
> organization and individual board members.
>

Because this document is between the individual board members and the
organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign
it.  If you're asking for advice on what *you* should do, it'd help to
know how you currently feel about the document, as well as what
ethical system you have adopted to make the decision of whether or not
to sign it.  In any case, I'd point out that you're not going to be on
the board much longer anyway, so it seems to me the benefits of
signing are negligible, even if the rest of the board members threaten
to remove you from the board if you refuse to sign.

As for the other board members, one key question for them to consider
is whether or not a majority of the board is likely to expel all
members who refuse to sign.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Effe iets anders]

Of course it is of importance! if this i to be signed by all board
members, it will potentially influence the board functionig in
practice. I think it "business" of all people who are concerned with
the functioning of Wikimedia as a movement in the end. But *please*
leave it up toher and her alone whether she wants to run for
re-election, let's not decide that for her please. (I personally hope
she will, it will be very hard to find a replacement just as good I
think)

Signing or not signing because it is only for a short period of time
sounds like a bad argument to me, btw.

I will certainly read the text with interest and a critical eye,
thanks for asing our input, Florence!

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/5/17 Anthony <[hidden email]>:

> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 4:21 AM, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise
>> that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with
>> attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks
>> ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to
>> provide your input.
>>
>> I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far
>> exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document
>> represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the
>> organization and individual board members.
>>
> Because this document is between the individual board members and the
> organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign
> it.  If you're asking for advice on what *you* should do, it'd help to
> know how you currently feel about the document, as well as what
> ethical system you have adopted to make the decision of whether or not
> to sign it.  In any case, I'd point out that you're not going to be on
> the board much longer anyway, so it seems to me the benefits of
> signing are negligible, even if the rest of the board members threaten
> to remove you from the board if you refuse to sign.
>
> As for the other board members, one key question for them to consider
> is whether or not a majority of the board is likely to expel all
> members who refuse to sign.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 6:48 AM, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Signing or not signing because it is only for a short period of time
> sounds like a bad argument to me, btw.
>
To clarify, the benefits of signing (not risking removal from the
board?) would be for a short period of time.  The detriments of it
would last forever.

As for the rest of your post, I'm going to bite my tongue on my
response, having had my speech chilled by previous bouts of
moderation.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> Because this document is between the individual board members and the
> organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign
> it.

The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the
organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board
and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're
nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do
with it.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Michael Bimmler]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Because this document is between the individual board members and the
>> organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign
>> it.
>
> The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the
> organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board
> and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're
> nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do
> with it.)
>

I concur and, as Lodewijk already said, I'm glad that we have been
given a chance for input here and I'll read it with interest!

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

"Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for
three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the
press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the
Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions
on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums,
personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally
disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its
affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior
officers."

That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good,
criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be
public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote
for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done
various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course,
I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to
support them)?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Because this document is between the individual board members and the
>> organization, it's really none of my business whether or not you sign
>> it.
>
> The board member side isn't any of our business, perhaps, but the
> organisation side is. It's basically an agreement between the board
> and us, so of course it's our business. (I know legally speaking we're
> nothing to do with the foundation, but in practice we have a lot to do
> with it.)
>

Fair enough.  That particular comment of mine wasn't that important
anyway.  Feel free to ignore it.

I certainly do *care* whether or not Florence signs the agreement, and
I would hope that she doesn't, because I'd like to hear her uncensored
opinion on Foundation issues after she leaves (if not while she's
still here).  But in the end, I don't think Florence cares what I
want, so I tried to point out to her why it is in *her* best interest
to refuse to sign the agreement.

As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the
staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by
anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input
from us anyway.  If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's
take this discussion to an uncensored forum.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
Some criticism is good some criticism is awful. We have seen concerted
attacks on the WMF and its officers by some who do not deserve to be named
or dare not to be named. When this is the criticism that is good, I prefer
to do without. It certainly does not improve the functioning of the WMF if
anything it polarises our community. As to evidence, the quality of what is
purported to be evidence can be best qualified as utter crap and.

There is a difference between criticism and smear and certainly when
criticism is spinned in order to assassinate the character of people one
disagrees with or does not like, it makes sense for the people who have to
know a lot of confidential information to function, to sign an agreement
that gives them a moral obligation to remain on the straight and narrow.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> "Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for
> three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with the
> press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the
> Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions
> on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums,
> personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally
> disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its
> affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior
> officers."
>
> That explicitly bans all public criticism. Criticism is good,
> criticism is how things improve. Sometimes that criticism has to be
> public to be effective - for example, how can we make an informed vote
> for board members if we're not allowed to know that they've done
> various things wrong during their previous term in office (of course,
> I would expect anyone making such accusations to provide evidence to
> support them)?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

> But in the end, I don't think Florence cares what I
> want, so I tried to point out to her why it is in *her* best interest
> to refuse to sign the agreement.

I expect she cares about what you want in as much as you are a member
of the community and she clearly cares about what the community wants.

> As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the
> staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by
> anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input
> from us anyway.  If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's
> take this discussion to an uncensored forum.

While I expect Mike was the one to actually write it, what goes in is
up the board, not the staff. Clearly at least one member of the board
does want input from us.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Michael Bimmler]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the
> staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by
> anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input
> from us anyway.  If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's
> take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
>

You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear
anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input
and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this
invitation, however critical he may be.

NB: If this thread turns completely off-topic and becomes a flamewar
on something quite unrelated, e.g. if you decide that it's now time to
rediscuss all the alleged scandals of the last X years, where a NDA
would have been unhelpful, the above might not apply because this
would surely turn unproductive in minutes.

But as long as you stick to discussing the merits of the NDA itself
[yes, I know, I shouldn't use this abbreviation because it is already
reserved for the non-disclosure agreement, but I can't be bothered to
write it out everytime], I don't see any problemtatic issues here.

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 17/05/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  Some criticism is good some criticism is awful.

Exactly, which is why the non-disparagement agreement shouldn't simply
ban all criticism. I have no problem with an agreement not to launch
smear campaigns against the foundation, other board members, etc., but
constructive criticism should always be encouraged, even if people
don't like to hear it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Jimmy Wales]

It is worth noting that this is a very preliminary draft and not
something the board is actively considering voting for at this time.
Therefore, a detailed discussion of very minor word-smithing is probably
going to be a waste of people's energy.  (Feel free to do it, I am just
saying that suggesting that a comma be moved, or that a provision be
changed in some minor ways is probably not really the best approach
right now.)

What is probably going to be more helpful is a broad discussion of
principles and values.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
I wholeheartedly agree on this one.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On 17/05/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> >  Some criticism is good some criticism is awful.
>
> Exactly, which is why the non-disparagement agreement shouldn't simply
> ban all criticism. I have no problem with an agreement not to launch
> smear campaigns against the foundation, other board members, etc., but
> constructive criticism should always be encouraged, even if people
> don't like to hear it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the
>> staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by
>> anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input
>> from us anyway.  If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's
>> take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
>>
>
> You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear
> anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input
> and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this
> invitation, however critical he may be.
>

You and I have in the past had significant disagreements over what is
considered "civil".  There are certain things I want to say that I
don't think you'd consider "civil", and I don't want to be in a
situation where I make certain statements and am unable to back them
up with specific examples.

I don't feel comfortable participating in this forum on this topic.
If anyone wants my uncensored opinion on this matter, feel free to
join me at http://wiki.p2pedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_Statement_of_Responsibility
and ask questions.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Gerard Meijssen-3]

Hoi,
If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and
expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to
express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into
your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without
using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to
make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in
the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum
and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there
and consequently not be heard.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Michael Bimmler <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> As for "the organisation side", I don't think the opinions of the
> >> staff members who created this agreement are going to be swayed by
> >> anything said here on foundation-l, and they haven't asked for input
> >> from us anyway.  If you'd like me to go into further detail, let's
> >> take this discussion to an uncensored forum.
> >>
> >
> > You know, as long as arguments are kept civil, you don't have to fear
> > anything in terms of list moderation. Florence has called for input
> > and I'm the last one to moderate anyone who responds to this
> > invitation, however critical he may be.
> >
> You and I have in the past had significant disagreements over what is
> considered "civil".  There are certain things I want to say that I
> don't think you'd consider "civil", and I don't want to be in a
> situation where I make certain statements and am unable to back them
> up with specific examples.
>
> I don't feel comfortable participating in this forum on this topic.
> If anyone wants my uncensored opinion on this matter, feel free to
> join me at
> http://wiki.p2pedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_Statement_of_Responsibility
> and ask questions.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and
> expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to
> express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into
> your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without
> using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to
> make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in
> the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum
> and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there
> and consequently not be heard.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>

Your loss.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Chad]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere and
> expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to
> express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go into
> your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without
> using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to
> make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in
> the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum
> and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there
> and consequently not be heard.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>

There's also something to be said about keeping your thoughts concise
and to-the-point. Overly verbose people have the tendency of losing their
audience (who will then just agree because it was so long, it must be
right).

Several on this list could trim their posts before sending.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Brian McNeil-2]

It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of
civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.


Brian McNeil

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sent: 17 May 2008 15:44
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement of responsibility

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> If you cannot say it here, I doubt it is reasonable to say it elsewhere
and
> expect to be heard. If you want to polarise between those who are able to
> express themselves civilly and those that find they cannot., you can go
into
> your own little corner and sulk. Strong opinions can be expressed without
> using strong words. The reason for strong opinions and civil words is to
> make sure that a message is heard and acted upon. When strong words are in
> the way of having the message heard, you are indeed talking into a vacuum
> and if that is on this other platform, then it is your option to be there
> and consequently not be heard.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
Your loss.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Anthony-73]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Brian McNeil
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is not Gerard's loss. It is everyone's loss that you feel incapable of
> civilly and articulately expressing yourself here.
>
Then maybe the moderators should fix that situation, so that I *do*
feel capable of civilly and articulately expressing myself here.
Because it's not that I don't feel capable of civilly and articulately
expressing myself, it's that I don't feel capable of doing it in this
forum.

If y'all feel this is a loss, fix it.

In any case, I had meant to send that comment to Gerard personally.
Sorry for the missend.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l