[Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Andreas Kolbe-2
On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]

things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept
> private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> personal information, etc.
>

Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion
around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]

This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
desirable.

At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
again some weeks, months, years down the line.

Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
other.

Andreas

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
[2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Risker
Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?

This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment
standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who has
just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.

Risker/Anne

On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
>
> things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept
> > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > personal information, etc.
> >
>
> Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion
> around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> other.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

SarahSV
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
listing transparency requests.

Sarah​
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Risker
On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> leadership
> > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > desirable.
> >
> > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> arise
> > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> >
> > ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer within
> the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
> listing transparency requests.
>
>

Why would this be within the community engagement department?  I'm not
saying you're wrong, but I'm not actually seeing any logical explanation
for it being a CE issue.  It seems more a legal issue (in respect of
board/executive transparency) or human resources issue (in respect of
NDAs).  It's pretty obvious from what has bubbled to the surface over the
last few months that transparency was NOT just an issue from the community
perspective.  Perhaps a transparency officer in Legal might make sense.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Risker
Anne,

This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these
NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.

It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful
for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk
about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.

If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
Perhaps we can agree on that.

As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on that.

Andreas

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
> and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
>
> This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for employment
> standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who has
> just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> >
> > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> kept
> > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > > personal information, etc.
> > >
> >
> > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> discussion
> > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> >
> > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> leadership
> > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > desirable.
> >
> > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> arise
> > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> >
> > Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> > to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> > tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> > other.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> > [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

SarahSV
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>

I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency

Sarah
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Risker
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Umm....what the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards.  The
NDA is an employer-employee agreement.  It is not subject to the wishes of
the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way.  NDAs are used to
control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up
to and including termination should they violate them.  In the case of
volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various
types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed
and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure
depending on the nature of the disclosure.

There have been transparency problems, no question about it.  But they had
nothing to do with NDAs.  Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point.
They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.

Risker/Anne

On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Anne,
>
> This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what these
> NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
> existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
>
> It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's useful
> for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't talk
> about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
>
> If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
> more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
> isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
> publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
> into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
> Perhaps we can agree on that.
>
> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do this
> > and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
> >
> > This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
> employment
> > standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who
> has
> > just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> > >
> > > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> > kept
> > > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
> > > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
> > > > personal information, etc.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
> to
> > > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> > > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> > discussion
> > > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> > >
> > > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> > leadership
> > > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
> are
> > > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > > desirable.
> > >
> > > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
> clamouring
> > > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> > arise
> > > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> > >
> > > Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be
> good
> > > to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> > > tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or
> the
> > > other.
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> > > [2]
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Risker
In reply to this post by SarahSV
"Requests for transparency" is highly inaccurate; what you are requesting
is information.  The two are not synonymous.  I have moved the page to the
more correct name.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_information



On 12 March 2016 at 22:18, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> > engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> > community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> > that.
> >
> ​
> I've started a page where we can post requests and keep track of replies.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_transparency
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Risker
Guys...gals...some perspective?

The important thing (as Andreas initially said) is that informal
commitments from Trustees, to seek transparency in specific areas, not
continue to get lost.

The questions about what department it belongs in, the speed at which they
get addressed, etc. are all very much secondary to that general point. If
and when somebody from the organization acknowledges the general point, all
those tactical questions go away, because that person will presumably find
the most sensible way to address them.

I don't think it makes sense to use this email list to evaluate the proper
department for a specific task. A suggestion here and there, sure. But
fully evaluating it and coming to a strong conclusion...that's a job for
the organization, not for whatever volunteers happen to be following the
list at any given moment.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Umm....what the NDA says is very much a part of employment standards.  The
> NDA is an employer-employee agreement.  It is not subject to the wishes of
> the Wikimedia community, except in a very indirect way.  NDAs are used to
> control people's behaviours - if they're employees, they get disciplined up
> to and including termination should they violate them.  In the case of
> volunteers (and yes, there are many volunteers who sign NDAs for various
> types of access, myself included), their privileged access can be removed
> and potentially they could face legal ramifications for disclosure
> depending on the nature of the disclosure.
>
> There have been transparency problems, no question about it.  But they had
> nothing to do with NDAs.  Let's leave NDAs out of it at this point.
> They're absolutely not within Community Engagement's purview.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 March 2016 at 22:11, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Anne,
> >
> > This is not a question of employment standards – it's not about what
> these
> > NDAs etc. should or shouldn't say. We are talking about publication of
> > existing boilerplate agreements that are in routine use.
> >
> > It's a question of transparency. When volunteers talk to staff, it's
> useful
> > for them to have an accurate understanding of what staff can and can't
> talk
> > about, in particular as some staff members have raised this as an issue.
> >
> > If preparing this for publication takes a month or two, because there are
> > more pressing things to do right now, I have no problem with that. What
> > isn't good is if the community is told in response to queries, "Yes,
> > publishing the NDAs etc. is a reasonable idea", and those words just fade
> > into the mist because the task has never been actioned and delegated.
> > Perhaps we can agree on that.
> >
> > As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> > engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> > community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> > that.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Really, Andreas?  You're complaining that the resigning ED didn't do
> this
> > > and the one appointed less than 36 hours ago hasn't got around to it?
> > >
> > > This is not Maggie's responsibility - she is not responsible for
> > employment
> > > standards or expectations.  That would be the VP Human Resources...who
> > has
> > > just resigned, too, and has yet to be replaced.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > > On 12 March 2016 at 21:09, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
> > > >
> > > > things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
> > > > > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be
> > > kept
> > > > > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies
> are
> > > > > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy
> of
> > > > > personal information, etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer
> > to
> > > > transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and
> non-disparagement
> > > > clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when
> > > discussion
> > > > around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > > > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> > > leadership
> > > > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
> > are
> > > > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > > > desirable.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
> > clamouring
> > > > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> > > arise
> > > > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> > > >
> > > > Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be
> > good
> > > > to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible
> for
> > > > tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or
> > the
> > > > other.
> > > >
> > > > Andreas
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> > > > [2]
> > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

jytdog
In reply to this post by Risker
Hm.. in my experience, legal departments focus above all on managing risk
on behalf of their clients and using the legal system to the maximal
benefit of the organization of which they are a part.  In my view, putting
Transparency in Legal is a recipe for minimal disclosure, not maximal.  The
Transparency officer should be C level and advocate for maximal
disclosure.  I reckon they would often be opposed by Legal.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> > > transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a
> > leadership
> > > position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue
> are
> > > quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> > > desirable.
> > >
> > > At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The
> clamouring
> > > crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions
> > arise
> > > again some weeks, months, years down the line.
> > >
> > > ​It would be wonderful if we had a dedicated transparency officer
> within
> > the community engagement department. Perhaps we could open a page on meta
> > listing transparency requests.
> >
> >
>
> Why would this be within the community engagement department?  I'm not
> saying you're wrong, but I'm not actually seeing any logical explanation
> for it being a CE issue.  It seems more a legal issue (in respect of
> board/executive transparency) or human resources issue (in respect of
> NDAs).  It's pretty obvious from what has bubbled to the surface over the
> last few months that transparency was NOT just an issue from the community
> perspective.  Perhaps a transparency officer in Legal might make sense.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Antoine Musso-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Le 13/03/2016 03:09, Andreas Kolbe a écrit :

> things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
>> > all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept
>> > private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
>> > fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
>> > personal information, etc.
>> >
> Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion
> around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> other.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183

Hello Andreas,

I am a contractor to the WMF and have signed a wild range of legal
documents.  Both to protect my company, myself, the Wikimedia Foundation
Organization and the end-users.

Among such documents, there is the Non Disclosure Agreement which is
pretty much standard whenever an organization deal with any kind of
sensitive informations.  Wikimedia Foundation handles emails, passwords,
email address, IP address and most probably payment information for the
fundraising and shop.


To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly
there is no conspiracy behind that.  There are public clues though:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
 https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use
 Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies


Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA
whenever they get privileged access. The process is on:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA

What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also
disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using
a pseudonym.  But do not quote me on that.


For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of
technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An
example would be:  https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup

The short version is: do not mess with the infrastructure or extract
sensitive informations.  You will be prosecuted.


As for why you haven't had anyone reply back, a few hints:

* ED has changed
* folks are busy
* not everyone monitor wikimedia-l

So I would assume good faith: probably nobody noticed the request hidden
somewhere in a thread.

Since NDA is a legal document, I would highly recommend you to reach out
directly to their Legal team:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal , apparently the answers@ email
would be a good entry point.


(I have read/signed the documents there is nothing any important for the
end users to see beside what is already publicly available. They can
probably be made public.  In effect there is no conspiracy.)

Hope it helps.

--
Antoine "hashar" Musso


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Luis Villa-2
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly
> there is no conspiracy behind that.  There are public clues though:
>
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
>  https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use
>  Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
>

In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a
couple others, on-wiki at:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundation.27s_non-disclosure_agreements

Luis
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Alex Monk
In reply to this post by Antoine Musso-3
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA
> whenever they get privileged access. The process is on:
> https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA
>
> What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also
> disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using
> a pseudonym.  But do not quote me on that.
>
As a member of the #WMF-NDA-Requests project in Phabricator I can view L2,
but I can't see the signatures. The list of people who can is hidden in a
Phabricator custom policy. There is a task upstream about making it
possible to read custom policies.

On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of
> technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An
> example would be:  https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
>
I believe this one is accessible to anyone logged in:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L3
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Neil P. Quinn-2
As another data point, I joined the WMF last April and there was no
non-disparagement clause in my employment agreement. I suspect that at some
point someone realized it wasn't much good and dropped it from the standard
agreement, but older employees like Oliver were never given an updated
agreement to sign. I definitely think that should be fixed, but I'm sure
you can imagine it's not HR's top priority right now.

*Neil P. Quinn*
+1 (202) 656 3457

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Monk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Volunteers (ie neither staff or contractors) might have to sign a NDA
> > whenever they get privileged access. The process is on:
> > https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_NDA
> >
> > What I suspect is granting public read access to the NDA would also
> > disclose the list of signer and that might be a problem for people using
> > a pseudonym.  But do not quote me on that.
> >
> As a member of the #WMF-NDA-Requests project in Phabricator I can view L2,
> but I can't see the signatures. The list of people who can is hidden in a
> Phabricator custom policy. There is a task upstream about making it
> possible to read custom policies.
>
> On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >  For access to the servers, there is another document. It is a mix of
> > technical recommendations and again a remember about sensitive data. An
> > example would be:  https://www.debian.org/devel/dmup
> >
> I believe this one is accessible to anyone logged in:
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L3
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Keegan Peterzell
In reply to this post by Luis Villa-2
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a
> couple others, on-wiki at:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundation.27s_non-disclosure_agreements
>
> Luis


​Thanks, Luis.

Direct link:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_Employment_Agreement_Confidentiality_Clauses-2013.pdf



--
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Oliver Keyes-5
In reply to this post by Luis Villa-2
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly
>> there is no conspiracy behind that.  There are public clues though:
>>
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
>>  https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use
>>  Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
>>
>
> In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a
> couple others, on-wiki at:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundation.27s_non-disclosure_agreements
>
> Luis

Thanks Luis!

It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which
is nice. I'm not sure how new NDAs change the status of people who
signed old versions, of course.

> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Edward Galvez
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your email. A few wmf staff have worked on a page on meta to invite anyone to post their thoughts about transparency at https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transparency/Practices. Would you be able to post your idea there? I'd be happy to post it there for you if you have not yet done so / dont have time.

Based on what you say about being "no nearer to transparency", it would be great to know what "transparency" means to you and how transparency (or lack of transparency) affects you or your wikimedia work. There is no silver bullet to fixing transparency for everyone all the time, so I think its important to get on the same page first about the problem. I hope you find this page useful.

Thanks so much,
Edward



> On Mar 12, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On March 1, Jimmy Wales wrote:[1]
>
> things like standard boilerplate language to be signed by
>> all employees doesn't strike me as something in and of itself to be kept
>> private - there is a valid interest in showing that our policies are
>> fair and humane for employees, responsible in terms of the privacy of
>> personal information, etc.
>
> Nothing appears to have happened since then – we seem to be no nearer to
> transparency about the non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement
> clauses WMF staff have to sign than we were two weeks ago, when discussion
> around this topic kicked off in another thread.[2]
>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonable, and in fact more transparency would be absolutely
> desirable.
>
> At this point, people relax, feeling they have been heard. The clamouring
> crowd disperses. But in fact, nothing happens, and the same questions arise
> again some weeks, months, years down the line.
>
> Maggie, is this something your department could take on? It would be good
> to have one identified person at the Foundation who is responsible for
> tracking such queries and reporting back to the community, one way or the
> other.
>
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/082852.html
> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/685183#685183
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Luis Villa-2
In reply to this post by Oliver Keyes-5
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly
> >> there is no conspiracy behind that.  There are public clues though:
> >>
> >>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
> >>  https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use
> >>  Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
> >>
> >
> > In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and a
> > couple others, on-wiki at:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundation.27s_non-disclosure_agreements
> >
> > Luis
>
> Thanks Luis!
>
> It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which
> is nice.
>

There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in the
severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under
the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in
community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.

Luis
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Pine W
Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement that included a
financial payment from WMF, that would be... very interesting. And
potentially very problematic.

Pine

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 7:25 AM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but
> honestly
> > >> there is no conspiracy behind that.  There are public clues though:
> > >>
> > >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy
> > >>  https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Labs_Terms_of_use
> > >>  Others at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal#Policies
> > >>
> > >
> > > In mid-2013, the legal team put the standard employee NDA clauses, and
> a
> > > couple others, on-wiki at:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements#Wikimedia_Foundation.27s_non-disclosure_agreements
> > >
> > > Luis
> >
> > Thanks Luis!
> >
> > It looks like the non-disparagement clause has now been removed, which
> > is nice.
> >
>
> There was not one when I joined three years ago. There is still one in the
> severance agreement I was offered, which is why I didn't sign it - under
> the circumstances, I didn't feel like I could continue to participate in
> community processes (strategy, budget, etc.) while signing that clause.
>
> Luis
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

Michael Snow-5
On 3/14/2016 9:14 AM, Pine W wrote:
> Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement that included a
> financial payment from WMF, that would be... very interesting. And
> potentially very problematic.
Or it could be a relatively routine business practice. For example, in
many cases an employer is not required to pay out accumulated leave when
an employee departs, but may well offer to do so in connection with a
severance agreement. And it would not be surprising for a
non-disparagement clause to be requested in that context. Other
possibilities include facilitating the ex-employee's retaining some
employer-provided benefits (health insurance, retirement accounts, etc.)
or arranging a transition of those benefits until the person has found a
new position.

Since I gather Luis didn't sign the agreement, he may be at liberty to
share whether the offer included a financial element, and if there was
anything that would warrant concerns aside from the non-disparagement
clause. At the same time, it is for him a personal matter, I don't think
he should be pressured to disclose details he considers private. Since I
trust Luis's judgment without hesitation, I am happy to leave it to his
discretion what he does and doesn't want to reveal.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12