phoebe.wiki at gmail
Feb 4, 2011, 9:36 AM
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures
[In reply to]
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>> Steven Walling wrote:
>>> These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
>>> Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
>>> part of my job)...
>> I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
>> discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at
>> least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
>> exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being
>> discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes
>> had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
>> Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a
>> courtesy heads-up)?
> I will note, as a member of both of these lists, that you did not
> actually ask these questions - at least not publicly, that I could
> find - before sending a note to foundation-l. Probably doing so would
> have been helpful :)
> It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
> changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
> so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
> or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
> would be announced. The original announcement did affect only a
> limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it
> would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the
> issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should
> have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should
> weigh in.
er, private data :) Of course if you want to discuss non-private data
too, go for it!
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists