> > I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about > money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: > > "The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that > we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he > wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we > wont talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured > that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to > advance peoples online freedoms: everybody would like to see him > continue making an important contribution." [1] > > > As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public > money. There should be no "confidential" secret about where it ends, and > how much, and why. > > I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I > should understand such decision to hide facts. > > > [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link > to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html
I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism. Fred Bauder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
