> > > So the confidentiality agreement which was passed seems like it will > represent > a regression in transparency. One of the things I pointed out in the last > controversy is that it wasn't clear that the non-executive session portion > of > the board meeting was actually confidential. This closes that gap with 1.b. > and 1.c defining as confidential "the Foundation’s nonpublic plans, > strategies, > budgets, or financial information;" and "nonpublic information shared in > connection with Board meetings, deliberations, and discussions, including > nonpublic communications on private mailing lists or private wikis".... > > This effectively silences trustees from offering any information, lest they > befall what happened to James (who didn't even give any information to his > constituents, the community, only staff).
I can't see why you'd read it this way, but I think the Code of Conduct document presents things in a different light: points 2,3 and 7 are particularly relevant here. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct_of_the_Board_of_Trustees To my mind that sets a (welcome) expectation that Trustees will communicate proactively about what is going on and also clarifies that Trustees are free to speak in a personal capacity in many circumstances. Chris _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
