Geni, Thomas and MZMcbride suggest that the Foundation should announce the dismissal of low-impact employees because otherwise the rumor mill will make up stories. Perhaps you're right that the spread of rumors is inevitable, but you don't seem to acknowledge your own role in this. Even so, "Wikipedians will do what Wikipedians will do" is not the best argument for immediately publishing sensitive employment information, particularly when doing so may go against various elements of employment law and/or simple best practice.
Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government agencies; I suspect this is a fundamental difference of philosophy, and relates to why I mentioned "majority shareholder" in my initial post. As the Wikimedia community, what level of detailed control are we entitled to? We have some of the hallmarks of the role of the shareholder but not others, in that legally we have no particular rights to the Foundation but practically we control the Board composition through elections. The information given to shareholders of large, publicly owned corporations in the United States varies widely, but generally speaking announcements are not made about the hiring or departure of non-executive staff. Gregory cites a California statute, but all governments are not equally open: North Carolina: <quote> � 126‑22.� Personnel files not subject to inspection under � 132‑6. Personnel files of State employees, former State employees, or applicants for State employment shall not be subject to inspection and examination as authorized by G.S. 132‑6. For purposes of this Article, a personnel file consists of any information gathered by the department, division, bureau, commission, council, or other agency subject to Article 7 of this Chapter which employs an individual, previously employed an individual, or considered an individual's application for employment, or by the office of State Personnel, and which information relates to the individual's application, selection or nonselection, promotions, demotions, transfers, leave, salary, suspension, performance evaluation forms, disciplinary actions, and termination of employment wherever located and in whatever form. Personnel files of former State employees who have been separated from State employment for 10 or more years may be open to inspection and examination except for papers and documents relating to demotions and to disciplinary actions resulting in the dismissal of the employee. (1975, c. 257, s. 1; 1977, c. 866, s. 9.) <endquote> Even California is not as permissive as you imply; see http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/pdf/sos_pra_guidelines.pdf (Records Exempt from Public Disclosure) and http://law.onecle.com/california/government/6254.html (Government Code Section 6254 Paragraph C, describing the exemption of personnel records from public disclosure). In my opinion we should be informed about changes and actions that affect the Foundation and its operations or substantially impact the execution of its mission. This can include broad employment information on some employees, as evidenced by the recent announced departure of Jennifer Riggs. Maybe some people want the gory details when anyone is fired; every office has people like that. But we're not entitled to it, its poor manners to ask, and the Foundation is right to decline such requests. Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
