It seems to me, that the question of whether or not we should consider extending the scope of the whistleblower policy, can be reduced to a question of whether or not we believe that United States law at any given moment is an ideal representation of unacceptable conduct.
Either way, I would be deeply encouraged to see progress in creating a more robust and predictable connection between the board and WMF staff. Whether that connection ends up being a board liaison or something else, I suspect that well-established lines of communication would go a very long way toward eliminating the possibility that large numbers of staff will feel like they have to disassemble the whistleblower policy in the first place. -Katie On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Tim Starling <tstarl...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > 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: > 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>
