[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

Mon Apr 14 17:21:24 UTC 2008

Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> No. For one thing, what is a "directory senior officer"? For another,  
> it does not address independent contractors. For a third, it does not  
> address the over-broadness of the "shall not...make any statement  
> that....is derogatory of Employer". Provision IV's first clause is  
> unnecessary, as the agreement would not supersede US laws anyway.
While I'm willing to consider Geoffrey's alternative in the spirit with 
which it was presented, it seems to me that any alternative at this 
stage only digs a deeper hole.  If the non-disparagement policy is to 
have any value at all we need to agree to underlying principles first, 
and only then judge a specific text in terms of consistency with those 
principles.  The principle that one should not speak ill of fellow 
Wikipedians is probably acceptable to most, but that pre-supposes that 
speaking ill is well-defined.  In reality, what to some of is is just 
the normal cut and thrust of debate will be viewed as grave insult by 
others. 

While a breach of such policy can always be easily remedied with a 
current employee by the simple phrase, "You're fired," that can't be 
easily applied to a trustee, or even a former employee.  This is 
especially the case when that person is not a resident of the United 
States, and refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of the US courts in 
this matter.

The anti-disparagement policy seems to be more characteristic of an 
inner circle closing ranks.  This may not be the real intent, but it can 
be difficult for intent to match perception.

Ec