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
controversies of the last few months. It's disingenuous to argue that these
matters must all be off-limits for public discussion simply because they
fall under the umbrella of "HR." Having said that...

The names of the people who have left may be public; whether they accepted
a severance package or not obviously is not and should not be publicized
except willingly by them. It is relevant and useful information for the
rest of us to understand if severance agreements have been packaged with
non-disparagement clauses that could prevent negative but highly topical
and timely information from being released. We can probably infer that this
is the case from the profound silence emanating from most departed
employees, but it would be nice to know for sure if money and benefits were
used to insulate Lila or others from the effects of serious mismanagement.



On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 is potentially illegal for employers to disclose such
> information; many would feel it unethical for an employer to disclose the
> departure conditions absent a mutual agreement between the employer and the
> departed.  California human resources law would allow for a civil suit that
> could result in a large settlement, either individually or as a group
> (think high-tech employees lawsuit).  This is an area where "transparency"
> very definitely intersects with the privacy rights of those individuals who
> are directly affected.  Privacy should win.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>

Reply via email to