Hmm the lesson here is to realise that we have a wonderful community that shows some wonderful things about the human condition. However what I'm seeing is a lynch mob gathering on the wiki whilst all the decent people stay inside. The board should work out how to avoid and diminish such situations and not to just be a source of fuel and amplification.
R On 9 Jan 2014 14:44, "Fæ" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 January 2014 14:09, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9 January 2014 13:10, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > Though it's not unreasonable to infer that, they've made no such > > declaration - leastways, in their posts that I have seen, the phrase > > used is "frowned upon". > > > >> and the apparent swift termination of a long term employee, > > > > Again, that's not apparent to me; she may have resigned, wither > > willingly or under duress. WMF comments on the matter have not made > > such facts clear. > > You may be waiting an *awfully* long time for the facts to be made > clear. I think Occam's razor applies and the specific case does not > make all that much difference to the issue. WMUK needs to have a > governance policy as to whether it accepts that employees, contractors > and trustees can have undeclared past paid editing projects or secret > accounts on Wikipediocracy (or similar) where they can play at being > double agents (or whatever other good or bad motivation they might > have). > > >> I believe it appropriate for the Board > >> of Trustees of Wikimedia UK to agree a policy at the next board meeting > to > >> require employees, contractors and trustees to publicly declare any > current > >> or past paid editing activities, or related unpaid advocacy that may > >> represent a potential conflict of interest. > > > > WMUK already has a CoI policy does it not? No hasty action should be > > taken, particularly while the issues discussed above are not clear. > > I am not asking for hasty action, just a basic commitment that the > board of trustees will consider a policy at the next board meeting. I > am specifically not asking for knee-jerk reactions without > consultation with the members of the charity, and probably > consultation with WMF Legal, as now seems to be normal working > practice for the current board of trustees. > > As for the current WMUK COI policy, speaking as a past Chairman of the > charity, no it does not adequately cover this. In fact you can drive a > coach and horses through it with regard to these situations. > > >> I have posted this same proposal at > >> < > https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Engine_room#Declarations_for_paid_editing_and_related_advocacy > >, > >> however I recommend that should anyone wish to discuss specific > examples, > >> including naming or linking to > >> the WMF employee case, that this is limited to this independent email > list > >> rather than using the WMUK wiki. > > > > As a meta issue, I find it unhelpful to have discussions split between > > venues. Better to start one, and then post pointers to it elsewhere. > > Apparently decentralized discussion is the wiki-norm. However I agree > that having most of the discussion in one place is useful and > considering recent actions by the board to delete critical discussion > on the WMUK wiki, this list looks more open to free speech. > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > [email protected] http://j.mp/faewm > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
