> I'd like to ask about *who* this "professional fact finding" process talked > to? I'm not asking to "name specific names" but more about which groups of > people. >
I also wonder about this - I am sort of assuming that the people who were coming forward to raise grievances were included in the fact-finding. It would be odd not to ;) > - Were the Knight Foundation spoken with? > It might also be worth clarifying whether this was substantially related to the Knowledge Engine issue, or whether it was a largely separate set of grievances. While I'm using the word "grievance" - other people have talked about the "whistleblowing" policy - but what is being described here is what would in the UK be treated as a "workplace grievance". I.e. a staff member being concerned that, while their manager or another senior staff member isn't doing anything actually fraudulent or illegal, they do feel that the conduct of the manager concerned is having a serious impact on their own ability to do their job. Most UK employers have a formal grievance policy which sets out how staff should address these issues - including in the event that staff have a grievance about the chief executive or board members. Often these set out expectations about confidentiality and things like appeal processes. (Confidentiality can be a tricky one as a grievance is by its nature a communication from a staff member to their employer, and individual mangers or trustees actually can't promise to hear this stuff in confidence...) I don't know if WMF has one of these - perhaps is should? _______________________________________________ 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>
