Hi folks,
Please, please, please put pieces of this discussion that are important to
you on the transparency practices page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Transparency/Practices
There are a lot of ideas floating around and its important to have them in
one place.
Thanks all!
Edward
On Mon,
Luis,
The original announcement of your departure[1], posted on Feb. 8, said,
Quote: "Later this month, Luis will transition out of his current position
with the Wikimedia Foundation to pursue other opportunities. He will remain
in a consulting role with the Foundation over the next few months,
c
I should narrow the scope of my statement a bit. I understand a need for,
and support, carefully crafted NDAs that protect information like credit
card numbers and personally identifiable information. I am skeptical of
overly broad or vague NDAs, as well as non-disparagement clauses. I am
particula
Well, Pete, I certainly interpreted Nathan's question as being specific
enough to require that a number be given.
On 14 March 2016 at 14:28, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> > There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include
> > non-dispara
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker wrote:
> There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include
> non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and
> "how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and
> non-disclosure clauses".
Risker, can you
I'm looking at this issue from a few angles.
1. If an initial employment contract has a provision that employees who
voluntarily resign and provide X amount of notice will be paid out
something like their accrued vacation time (I believe that some
jurisdictions require this) and a certain amount o
There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include
non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and
"how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and
non-disclosure clauses". One is general, and the other is specific; the
first can likely be answered
We need to distinguish between the personal and private details of
individuals and the policies of the WMF around management of employees. It
should be clear to everyone that employee satisfaction, retention, dispute
management and other issues of personnel management are central to the
controversi
Actually, no, you probably can't ask that question either - because the
names of the individuals who have departed are pretty much all publicly
known. (There's even a timeline in which all their names are mentioned,
linked from news articles and other "external" locations.) In many
jurisdictions,
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way:
In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with
departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from
publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of
public interest?
___
On 14 March 2016 at 09:40, Risker wrote:
> I think it is probably best that human resources issues (including the
> reasons for people leaving the organization) are not included in this list,
> unless expressly disclosed by the individuals.
>
And, in particular, wild speculation on said topics.
I think it is probably best that human resources issues (including the
reasons for people leaving the organization) are not included in this list,
unless expressly disclosed by the individuals.
Risker
On 14 March 2016 at 12:14, Pine W wrote:
> Um. Luis, if you were offered a severance agreement
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 i
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 wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 1
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM Oliver Keyes wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> To the best of my knowledge such agreements are not public, but honestly
> >> there is no conspiracy behind that. Th
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 n
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
agreemen
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso 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/
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Luis Villa 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.
On 13 March 2016 at 20:07, Antoine Musso 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
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:08 PM Antoine Musso 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.w
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, respon
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
Trans
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
"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 wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at
Ummwhat 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
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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 wh
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
On 12 March 2016 at 22:02, SarahSV wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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, demand
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe 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 reasonabl
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
jus
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
32 matches
Mail list logo