On 04/05/16 12:02, MZMcBride wrote:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy
> You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current
> whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
> laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at
> least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation policies
> would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the
> Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
> non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?

The third and fourth paragraphs are not so narrow, but otherwise, yes,
I think it should be extended.

> My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees sought
> out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a tech
> organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an
> educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many
> employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and the
> chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you,
> Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior.

You are just regurgitating Lila's email. No transformation was
attempted or executed. The first time I heard about this supposed
conflict over strategy was when Lila posted her claims about it to
this list, shortly before her resignation.

In fact, employees disagreed with Lila's decision to pursue large
restricted grants for a stupid pet project, in secret, supported by
almost nobody, without Board knowledge let alone approval. This has
nothing to do with education versus technology (if such a dichotomy
can even be said to exist).

Damon merely suggested the project in question, he did not "run amok".

-- Tim Starling

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to