Talk:Principles for WiR and Volunteer Conflicts of Interest policy

Please discuss!

Comments

Here are my initial thoughts on the principles:

Wikimedians in Residence

1. Applying the same standards throughout has the benefit that any derived policy is simple and it avoids problems when the funding basis could change in mid-process.
2. An open recruitment process is condicio sine qua non for us.
3. It is clearly desirable to avoid having to ask for the Charity Commission's authority by following their requirements. However, I cannot see the benefit of going beyond requiring a Trustee to resign prior to a job offer being made. What do we gain by asking a Trustee to resign if they simply apply for a particular job? We could lose a Trustee who is then not subsequently short-listed or interviewed, and we need to be clear in a Principle the benefit we are weighing against that risk.

Volunteers in positions of trust

1. Principles either apply or they don't. So it's best not to describe 'in particular' circumstances, because you implicitly weaken the principle in other areas that you may not have considered. I understand your concern to single out CoI, but actually the principle must apply equally to all areas when the behaviour of Committee Members may be examined.
2. The principle is that 'clear guidance and processes about what this means in practice' shall be in place before we delegate to a subcommittee.

Independent Wikimedia outreach / consultancy work and other volunteer conflicts of interest

1. The first sentence is a sensible principle. The second exceeds our remit and I oppose it. I don't mind volunteers voluntarily disclosing their interests, but I don't want the responsibility of being forced to take on the management of an unlimited number of CoIs, and I'm not sure it's a sensible use of Trustees' time. It makes you wonder how volunteers manage to take part in activities in areas where there is no Chapter.
2. I can't support a principle that discriminates against volunteers who earn a living by training. I know what you're worried about, but there is no justification for a principle that effectively says "If you earn a living by training people to use Microsoft Office, you're eligible for a scholarship, but if you earn a living by training people to edit Wikipedia, you're not". What about our own Staff? Are they disqualified by this principle? If not, how are they different? If so, what advantage does that bring?
3. Same as above.
4. ditto.
5. Confidentiality is condicio sine qua non for us. As for a "high level of confidentiality" in this case, do we treat any declarations with a "low level of confidentiality"? Does that even have any meaning?
6. This is an important principle that goes beyond any Charity Commission requirements, and even beyond Nolan standards. However, I have become convinced that we will eventually have to adopt this line because of our inability to defend ourselves against malicious and mendacious accusations, unless we put the issue beyond any possible doubt. We will debar quite a few potential Trustees, but I expect that this principle is what the membership wants.

--RexxS (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Confidentiality

I may have further comments later, but I'll start pointing out that confidentially is not always an option. Conflicts need to be declared to whoever needs to know, not just trustees and staff. For example, if you are participating in a discussion about an area where you have a conflict, then you need to declare it to everyone else in the discussion and anyone observing the discussion. --Tango (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Realistically, before expecting everyone in our Wikimedia universe to start making public and confidential declarations, we need to agree what is or is not perceived to be a declarable conflict of interest or a conflict of loyalties. Much dialogue on this matter incorrectly assumes we are only intending to expect declarations of current financial interests and this proposed document gives that same impression. As an example, the Wikimedia UK trustees do not have a common interpretation or definition on conflict of loyalties to apply to themselves, and in particular we have no agreement as to what might be expected to be declared on the public DOI page and what might be suitable to remain in confidence or undeclared as it is sufficiently irrelevant to our activities as a charity. It could well be that we will later be judged to have got this balance wrong when measured against our ability to manage reputational risk. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)