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 <risker...@gmail.com> 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 <jayen...@gmail.com> 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 <risker...@gmail.com> 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 <jayen...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
