Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Changes to the identification policies and procedures

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


z at mzmcbride

Feb 3, 2011, 5:20 PM

Post #1 of 35 (5448 views)
Permalink
Changes to the identification policies and procedures

Hi.

This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general
information and discussion.

Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the
policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the
Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information
will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.

This raises a number of questions:
* Who made these decisions?
* Why were these decisions made?
* Who was consulted about these decisions?
* Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before
these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a)
the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the
virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already
stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these
changes.)
* Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents?
* As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought?
(And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a
General Counsel currently?)
* What will the data retention policies be for the collected information?
* What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information?
* Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does
this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy?
* Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in
practice)?

Looking at this more broadly:
* What's the virtue of identification?
* Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the
identities are not verified?
* Can the submitted information be verified?
* Should the submitted information be verified?

In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at
least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability

I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and
the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki
here: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers>.
I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.

Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010
fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the
Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these
questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the
questions can wait until Philippe returns.

However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be
publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of
the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always
destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time,
but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented
and discussed.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 5:27 PM

Post #2 of 35 (5352 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Feb 3, 2011, 5:43 PM

Post #3 of 35 (5336 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Nathan wrote:
> Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?

An e-mail was sent by an OTRS admin to (at least)
otrs-en-l [at] lists and otrs-permissions-l [at] lists on
February 1, 2011 announcing these changes. I personally don't see any reason
that the author or contents of that announcement e-mail need to be kept
private, but I'll leave it up to that individual to make that call.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


steven.walling at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 6:08 PM

Post #4 of 35 (5337 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public, but they
weren't announced publicly yet because staff are still in discussion on the
OTRS mailing list and wiki with those volunteers about the best way for the
new identification process to work. OTRS volunteers and the groups who've
had to identify in the past are the ones most affected by this change, so
it's prudent to discuss it with them before making any general announcement.

Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
part of my job), I think it was completely inappropriate to prematurely
divulge activity in those forums. The people who are being asked to identify
are working with staff to reach a consensus on the safest and most agreeable
way to go forward. No one can give definitive answers about a process that
isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple
days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially
involved here.

On Feb 3, 2011 5:28 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Feb 3, 2011, 7:09 PM

Post #5 of 35 (5333 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

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)?

> No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple
> days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially
> involved here.

Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the
community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely
no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
their private information.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


steven.walling at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 7:27 PM

Post #6 of 35 (5335 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.

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)?
>
> > No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> > isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
> couple
> > days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
> potentially
> > involved here.
>
> Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the
> community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely
> no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
> retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
> implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
> their private information.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


pdsanchez at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 7:30 PM

Post #7 of 35 (5339 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail> wrote:
> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.

at the english otrs list, to be precise

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 7:39 PM

Post #8 of 35 (5333 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail> wrote:

> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
>
>
Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other
staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However,
thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of
volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it
surface, is just a little bit naive.

Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places,
which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the
instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended. Simply put,
identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it
cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom
they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less
protection. Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully
addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every*
identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS
agents identifying. We have a pile of people about to run in the steward
elections, will it affect them?

I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to
nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this
information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that,
and it never was.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


steven.walling at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 8:03 PM

Post #9 of 35 (5339 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Risker,

I'm not arguing here about the merits of the change itself. All I said is
that demanding answers about a very sensitive discussion on a private
mailing list is inappropriate right now, and that there's no reason to
panic, since the standard operating procedure is to make a public
announcement about something when a project is ready.

Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official
announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st.
> I
> > know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> > procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
> >
> >
> Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other
> staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However,
> thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of
> volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it
> surface, is just a little bit naive.
>
> Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places,
> which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the
> instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended. Simply put,
> identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it
> cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom
> they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less
> protection. Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully
> addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every*
> identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS
> agents identifying. We have a pile of people about to run in the steward
> elections, will it affect them?
>
> I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to
> nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this
> information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that,
> and it never was.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cmoellenberndt at wikimedia

Feb 3, 2011, 8:57 PM

Post #10 of 35 (5333 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Hi everyone,

Yes, there are some changes happening. We announced it to the OTRS
volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this
change. Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they
would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if
requested. I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says
that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation,
OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID
if asked, we're now asking them to do so. We are working with the OTRS
volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the
Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.

-Christine and the vacationing Philippe

---------
Christine Moellenberndt
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

christine [at] wikimedia


On 2/3/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Hi.
>
> This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general
> information and discussion.
>
> Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the
> policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information
> will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.
>
> This raises a number of questions:
> * Who made these decisions?
> * Why were these decisions made?
> * Who was consulted about these decisions?
> * Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before
> these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a)
> the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the
> virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already
> stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these
> changes.)
> * Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents?
> * As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought?
> (And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a
> General Counsel currently?)
> * What will the data retention policies be for the collected information?
> * What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information?
> * Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does
> this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy?
> * Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in
> practice)?
>
> Looking at this more broadly:
> * What's the virtue of identification?
> * Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the
> identities are not verified?
> * Can the submitted information be verified?
> * Should the submitted information be verified?
>
> In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at
> least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia:
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability
>
> I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and
> the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki
> here:<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers>.
> I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.
>
> Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010
> fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the
> Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these
> questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the
> questions can wait until Philippe returns.
>
> However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be
> publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of
> the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always
> destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time,
> but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented
> and discussed.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


pdsanchez at gmail

Feb 3, 2011, 9:20 PM

Post #11 of 35 (5347 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Christine Moellenberndt
<cmoellenberndt [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Yes, there are some changes happening.  We announced it to the OTRS
> volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this
> change.  Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they
> would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if
> requested.  I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says
> that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation,
> OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID
> if asked, we're now asking them to do so.  We are working with the OTRS
> volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the
> Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.
>
> -Christine and the vacationing Philippe
>
> ---------
> Christine Moellenberndt
> Community Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> christine [at] wikimedia
>

My issue is that I've already identified, verified, ok'd, and it
seems, that's not nough anymore, now WMF wants to keep a permanent
record of who am I, with the possible implications of it.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


de10011 at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 12:45 AM

Post #12 of 35 (5336 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Steven,The Meta page for OTRS was updated to reflect the changes from Feb 1.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341291

<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341291>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341294

<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341294>People
have made numerous mentions of the Identification issue publicly on Meta.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#OTRS_Access


Regards


Theo


On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>wrote:

> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
>
> 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)?
> >
> > > No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> > > isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
> > couple
> > > days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
> > potentially
> > > involved here.
> >
> > Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves
> the
> > community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes
> absolutely
> > no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
> > retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
> > implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
> > their private information.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Feb 4, 2011, 8:16 AM

Post #13 of 35 (5322 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with
> access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...

Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted
content, which is non-public data.

> We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that
> will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the
> community.

How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and
security to the community?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


zexley at wikimedia

Feb 4, 2011, 8:40 AM

Post #14 of 35 (5330 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Max,

Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we
really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple
of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with
other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion
without Philippe.

Zack



On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> > I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with
> > access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...
>
> Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted
> content, which is non-public data.
>
> > We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so,
> that
> > will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to
> the
> > community.
>
> How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and
> security to the community?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--

Zack Exley
Chief Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 9:34 AM

Post #15 of 35 (5324 views)
Permalink
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.

For those not on the OTRS list, it's a list that is used
(unsurprisingly) for coordinating OTRS -- things like "there's a new
template for common question XYZ". It is and has always been a closed
list, because access to OTRS is closed and some things are sensitive
("hey, did can we merge all the mails from this person?") It is
typically pretty unexciting -- this is the longest discussion I think
I've ever seen on it in my 5+ years of being subscribed :)

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 9:36 AM

Post #16 of 35 (5331 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> 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!

phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 9:56 AM

Post #17 of 35 (5325 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Why is it such a transgression to bring the discussion to
foundation-l? The change was discussed on meta, announced on the otrs
lists, etc... I'm not clear on what was left to decide in the
discussion on OTRS, or why that discussion couldn't happen on a list
with broader participation. The Foundation's position on
identification affects not only OTRS volunteers, but also stewards,
checkusers and ombuds committee members, among others, and anyone who
is considering volunteering for those roles.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


z at mzmcbride

Feb 4, 2011, 9:59 AM

Post #18 of 35 (5317 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> 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.

In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have
tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
staff." I don't disagree.

My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers
need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot
of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why
there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
intentional? Was it simply an oversight?

Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes
(and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the
pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department
doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the
community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.

Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going to
announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't
seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it
leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like
these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and
thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS
mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.

> 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.

People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being
chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see
how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some
posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring
here primarily to Steven's posts).

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


winters1c at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 10:17 AM

Post #19 of 35 (5319 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

Wait, so the policy change is about to be implemented, the discussion on
private list has been going on for a while.

Some peoples already submitted their IDs and the deadline for ID submission
is in a few weeks...and asking about it here is being called presumptuous.

How is it a "good-faith interpretation" for not announcing the changes since
they've already started implementing it ? they even decided on a deadline
already. I don't follow.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:

> phoebe ayers wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people
> have
> tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
> allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
> staff." I don't disagree.
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain
> volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a
> lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
> it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least
> why
> there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
> intentional? Was it simply an oversight?
>
> Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes
> (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the
> pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department
> doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the
> community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.
>
> Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going
> to
> announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't
> seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not,
> it
> leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like
> these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and
> thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.
>
> > 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.
>
> People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being
> chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see
> how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some
> posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring
> here primarily to Steven's posts).
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Bartol Flint
Student
Erasmus University Rotterdam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


aaron.adrignola at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 10:26 AM

Post #20 of 35 (5318 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

This is the first I've heard about this, as an OTRS volunteer for an English
language non-info-en queue. I do not have the luxury of being subscribed to
the OTRS mailing list, as it's restricted to those with access to the
info-en queue. That subset of OTRS members is not equal to all of them.
Therefore I was not been privy to the aforementioned discussion, which
involves procedures that theoretically would affect me. I do see that there
is discussion of it on the OTRS wiki.

-- Adrignola
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 10:29 AM

Post #21 of 35 (5326 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
>> 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.
>
> In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have
> tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
> allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
> staff." I don't disagree.
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.)

Fair enough! In a general context -- not related to this specific
issue -- I would love to see some better best practices for how to
conduct these kinds of discussions in a fair and appropriate way. Some
general principles that I wish everyone would keep in mind all the
time:

1. everyone should assume good faith of everyone else. It doesn't help
on that front when messages are accusative or otherwise bite-y.
Remember that we're all newbies in some situations; everyone has stuff
to bring to the table and everyone (in my experience) tries really
hard to do the right thing. We are all (staff and volunteers)
"Wikimedia community members".

2. the staff does many things that the community is not aware of, and
has concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known;
they may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely
known.

3. the community does many things the staff is not aware of, and has
concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known; they
may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely known.

4. not all community members are in "the same place"; e.g. not all the
stewards read the OTRS list, we all know that not everyone reads
foundation-l, etc. People who have similar concerns may be in widely
dispersed areas, not to mention the language-barrier issue.

5. as a corollary to 2, 3 & 4, it is probably best to have an open
discussion about issues that affect work that is done both by
community members and staff members.

6. as we have seen in all discussions since time immemorial, when you
have a big group of people discussing an issue some people have
expertise and points of view that they can add to the discussion that
are novel and useful (e.g. the community member who spoke up about
this on the OTRS list who is a security expert IRL); and some people
don't. There will also always be people who don't read the discussion
or have another ax to grind. It is also generally difficult to
determine consensus in this situation if there are many competing
ideas.

7. because of 4 and 6, there is a challenge in making big discussions
inclusive, productive and non-whiny, and in drawing conclusions from
them. It is however possible, and has been done before.

8. principle 7 is further complicated by the fact that sometimes there
are other mandates that affect the situation, e.g. from the board or
from "on high" (sorry, we can't change tax law). Most of the time,
however, this is not the case; we have a very wide latitude in
determining the best course of action to take in how to successfully
run the projects and foundation, which actually makes things harder a
lot of the time. We run the show, but we have to figure out how to do
it.

9. we are doing something that is complicated, novel, and unlike any
other situation -- a community running what is now the 5th largest
website in the world. People will and have made mistakes. Many best
practices from other situations, like businesses hiring employees, are
not applicable. However, we do have an internal body of best practices
that have been honed over time (like not voting and open discussions)
that actually prove useful much of the time.

10. Wikimedians love to give their 0.02 {local currency here} and tend
to get seriously annoyed when they don't get the chance to do so.

Now, how do we take this situation and have a productive conversation
that results in, for instance, the best damn strategy for volunteers
accessing private data that the world has ever seen?

-- phoebe, speaking as a community member only

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


birgitte_sb at yahoo

Feb 4, 2011, 11:19 AM

Post #22 of 35 (5321 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

----- Original Message ----
> From: Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and
>procedures
>
<snip>
>
> Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
> upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
> discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
>

I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive
discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and
the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being
repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise,
it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring
discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the
gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to
someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being
spread here.


I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had
originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information
from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains
for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a
continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I
would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is
still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue
altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts
and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to
do; thank you.


The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not
because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone
on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of
responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions
leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing
in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking
information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of
course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about
the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate
newcomers as to prefer ignorance.

Birgitte SB





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


keegan.wiki at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 12:07 PM

Post #23 of 35 (5317 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, MZMcBride <z [at] mzmcbride> wrote:
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain
> volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a
> lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
> it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least
> why
> there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
> intentional? Was it simply an oversight?


I've had off-hand conversations with many fellow agents over the past couple
years that were glancing discussions about the privacy policy and OTRS.
Many were concerned about applying because of their transparency in ID not
to the WMF, but other volunteers. Trust is a valuable thing and it is very
hard to build in an online medium. As a subscriber to both otrs-en-l and
otrs-admins-l, I can assure you and the community that there was no closed
door conversation with a dozen people on a private mailing list responsible.
It's the WMF's call, and one that I happen to support.


--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


whothith at gmail

Feb 4, 2011, 12:15 PM

Post #24 of 35 (5318 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

I agree with Brigitte completely.

Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with
your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the
staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like
we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for
that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.

Though I am surprised to see a "fellow" defending a staff decision and
calling himself a staff person earlier, does that mean the other
5-6-whatever fellows are staff too?

The staff can answer or ignore like Brigitte said or even better, as the
"Chief Community officer" said "we really should wait until Philippe gets
back..." for answers.

Elizabeth


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb [at] yahoo> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and
> >procedures
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about
> an
> > upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> > announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a
> productive
> > discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
> >
>
> I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive
> discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably
> and
> the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being
> repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems
> otherwise,
> it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only
> bring
> discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the
> gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not
> object to
> someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being
> spread here.
>
>
> I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they
> had
> originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
> information
> from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
> because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking
> pains
> for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed
> a
> continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite
> what I
> would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he
> is
> still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
> issue
> altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
> efforts
> and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard
> things to
> do; thank you.
>
>
> The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is
> not
> because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive
> tone
> on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend
> of
> responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral
> questions
> leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of
> wrongdoing
> in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of
> seeking
> information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other.
> Of
> course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough
> about
> the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to
> integrate
> newcomers as to prefer ignorance.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


wikipedia at frontier

Feb 4, 2011, 12:15 PM

Post #25 of 35 (5314 views)
Permalink
Re: Changes to the identification policies and procedures [In reply to]

On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had
> originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information
> from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
> because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains
> for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a
> continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I
> would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is
> still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue
> altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts
> and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to
> do; thank you.
I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not
fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to
a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a
forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be
more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things,
surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing
it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does
require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is
productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public
discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media
approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter.
They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly
maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the
pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand
further improvement.

On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done
to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel.
I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically
dedicated to communications with the community. As the current
communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more
external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've
been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined
in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I
would hope to see such a position relatively soon.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.