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

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

 

 

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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 21, 2012, 6:06 PM

Post #1 of 50 (1239 views)
Permalink
[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged
with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I took
it on.

Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen the
ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with the
exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit, who
has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory member
of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.

It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been extremely
remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of commission,
and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.

Best wishes,
pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

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


berialima at gmail

Apr 21, 2012, 8:10 PM

Post #2 of 50 (1218 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running
a new process, Philippe?
_____
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged
> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I took
> it on.
>
> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen the
> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with the
> exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit, who
> has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory member
> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
>
> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been extremely
> remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of commission,
> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
>
> Best wishes,
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe [at] wikimedia
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


richard.symonds at wikimedia

Apr 22, 2012, 12:29 PM

Post #3 of 50 (1215 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...

Richard
On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> > A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged
> > with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
> > the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> > efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
> > who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> took
> > it on.
> >
> > Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> the
> > ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> the
> > exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit,
> who
> > has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory
> member
> > of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >
> > It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> extremely
> > remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of
> commission,
> > and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > pb
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > philippe [at] wikimedia
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sterkebak at gmail

Apr 22, 2012, 12:32 PM

Post #4 of 50 (1222 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Yeah, they are doing a very good job...

One year a go with all the "abigor" drama everybody told go to the
umbutsman commision, and they never responded...

I'm happy to see that we keep the failing commite with the same people yet
another year.

Best,

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


betienne at bellaliant

Apr 22, 2012, 12:43 PM

Post #5 of 50 (1215 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

Ebe123


On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia>
wrote:

> I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
>
> Richard
> On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>
>> Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running
>> a new process, Philippe?
>> _____
>> *Béria Lima*
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
>> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>>
>>
>> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>
>>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
>>> undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged
>>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
>>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
>>> efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
>>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
>> took
>>> it on.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
>> the
>>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
>> the
>>> exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit,
>> who
>>> has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory
>> member
>>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
>>>
>>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
>> extremely
>>> remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of
>> commission,
>>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> pb
>>> ___________________
>>> Philippe Beaudette
>>> Director, Community Advocacy
>>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>>
>>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>>>
>>> philippe [at] wikimedia
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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


risker.wp at gmail

Apr 22, 2012, 12:46 PM

Post #6 of 50 (1213 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
point out that there has never been a vote for this position.

Risker/Anne

On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule <betienne [at] bellaliant> wrote:

> Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
>
> Ebe123
>
>
> On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> >
> > Richard
> > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> >> Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of
> running
> >> a new process, Philippe?
> >> _____
> >> *Béria Lima*
> >>
> >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> >> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> >>> undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged
> >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> tool,
> >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> >>> efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> Board,
> >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> >> took
> >>> it on.
> >>>
> >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> >> the
> >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> >> the
> >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit,
> >> who
> >>> has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory
> >> member
> >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> >> extremely
> >>> remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of
> >> commission,
> >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> pb
> >>> ___________________
> >>> Philippe Beaudette
> >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >>>
> >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >>>
> >>> philippe [at] wikimedia
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


lodewijk at effeietsanders

Apr 22, 2012, 2:58 PM

Post #7 of 50 (1212 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Hi Anne,

it was however common procedure to ask publicly for applications before
making a decision on who are the best candidates. Maybe they are the best
there are - maybe not, we'll never know.

As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
privately).

Best,

Lodewijk

El 22 de abril de 2012 21:46, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> escribió:

> Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
> point out that there has never been a vote for this position.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule <betienne [at] bellaliant> wrote:
>
> > Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
> >
> > Ebe123
> >
> >
> > On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of
> > running
> > >> a new process, Philippe?
> > >> _____
> > >> *Béria Lima*
> > >>
> > >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> > >> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > >>> undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee.
> Charged
> > >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> > tool,
> > >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism
> and
> > >>> efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> > Board,
> > >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> > >> took
> > >>> it on.
> > >>>
> > >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the
> ombudsmen
> > >> the
> > >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All,
> with
> > >> the
> > >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is
> Pundit,
> > >> who
> > >>> has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory
> > >> member
> > >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> > >>>
> > >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> > >> extremely
> > >>> remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of
> > >> commission,
> > >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best wishes,
> > >>> pb
> > >>> ___________________
> > >>> Philippe Beaudette
> > >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > >>>
> > >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > >>>
> > >>> philippe [at] wikimedia
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Apr 22, 2012, 3:11 PM

Post #8 of 50 (1213 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Lodewijk, 22/04/2012 23:58:
> As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
> report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
> privately).

If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask
the commission whether they reached them.

Nemo

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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 22, 2012, 3:28 PM

Post #9 of 50 (1220 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
>
Hi Beria -

It's a good question, and a fair one.

The truth is, there were a couple of factors: first, did I believe the
current commission was doing a good job? No, I actually think they're
doing an *exceptional* job. Second, was there a desire from among
themselves for change? Yes, Pundit wanted to be a steward, but when
Christine and I were scouting for this committee, we had anticipated
someone rotating off and had another commissioner who was already trained
and participating. So the commission was stable.

Then, what is the cost and benefit of the search? On the benefit side,
there's the ability to form a new commission with all the myriad benefits
that flow from that. But on the contra side, I sort of felt like stability
is something good right now: systems are changing everywhere, and maybe
keeping this one with a core group of stable people who are doing a good
job is a good idea. I continue to believe that is true.

In addition, running a search is costly: in time for volunteers and staff.
This is a secondary consideration - obviously, if the preceding had not
been true, we'd have made the staff time to run the search. But when I
looked at the realities of my transition to a new team, to not having
Christine to help, and at Maggie's workload, there was a definite savings
in "time beyond the norm" that would have been used to run this search.

They're hard: it's more than just asking for volunteers. We put together
the commission with an eye toward diversity of gender, project, language,
and geography, and we needed Wikimedians who are above reproach: this folks
are the ultimate arbiters of the checkuser tool, and they have to be
unblemished. So much as a whiff of an issue around privacy, and things
could get very uncomfortable... so we did a lot of deep diving into
backgrounds. It's a very very time intensive process, and we could frankly
use the time other places.

Finally, I continue to believe that we should stick with traditions that
make sense, but give them enough flexibility to change with circumstances:
so re-appointing the commission this time was partially intended to set
that as a possible solution going forward. That said, in order to prevent
a "permanent committee", I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would
ever reappoint a full commission more than one time. But, I wanted to have
reappointment in my (or whomever's) list of tools for the future if need
be.

Hope that gives you some insight into my thinking.

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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 22, 2012, 3:31 PM

Post #10 of 50 (1215 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

<philippe [at] wikimedia>



On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail>wrote:

>
> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
> commission whether they reached them.



I think this is an excellent idea. Although I'd encourage you to position
it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had. :)

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


thogol at googlemail

Apr 22, 2012, 4:51 PM

Post #11 of 50 (1210 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Hi all,

Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
and therefore took a while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
within the committee, also for future committee searches.

However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
people to the right place where they could get help for their
individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
cases to this body.

Best regards,
Thogo.

2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>:
> <philippe [at] wikimedia>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail>wrote:
>
>>
>> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
>> commission whether they reached them.
>
>
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to position
> it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
> not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

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


lodewijk at effeietsanders

Apr 23, 2012, 1:21 AM

Post #12 of 50 (1208 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Hi Thomas,

of course the privacy of those involved needs to be guarantueed. But
questions I had in mind were:

* How many cases were brought to your attention?
* How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant
investigation beyond direct dismissal?
* How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)?
* In how many cases in total did the committee take action (or advise the
WMF to take action)?
* How many emails did you exchange over the past year on your mailing list?
* Were you able to send a confirmation with the outcome of the case to
every complainor?
* Was the person complained about informed every time of the fact they were
under investigation?
* Is the process accurately described on meta?
* Do you have steps in place to ensure every single request gets the follow
up it needs, if not will that be improved?
* How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
committee?

This information could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs. I
suspect that the Board already receives such summary (the committee reports
directly to the board according to the meta
page<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission>)
so an extract from that would probably be easiest. Even if that is not the
case I have the feeling it should be doable to create these numbers
afterwards for 2011. That is not only a big win for transparancy, but also
for future candidate members - they would know what they are getting into.
Finally, it allows people to evaluate if they trust the committee enough to
send their complaints to. I know several people who in the past (before the
current committee probably) have sent complaints but felt it was a black
box and have no idea what happened to them. That can be quite damaging for
the image and should be avoided.

Best,

Lodewijk

El 23 de abril de 2012 01:51, Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail>escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
> much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
> that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
> count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
> and therefore took a while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
> which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
> were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
> much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
> within the committee, also for future committee searches.
>
> However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
> came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
> therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
> people to the right place where they could get help for their
> individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
> most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
> able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
> creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
> developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
> reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
> other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
> cases to this body.
>
> Best regards,
> Thogo.
>
> 2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>:
> > <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> nemowiki [at] gmail>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask
> the
> >> commission whether they reached them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea. Although I'd encourage you to
> position
> > it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
> > not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.
> :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


thogol at googlemail

Apr 23, 2012, 3:06 AM

Post #13 of 50 (1211 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

> * How many cases were brought to your attention?

around 30, give or take

> * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant
> investigation beyond direct dismissal?

around 10, I'd say

> * How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)?

none that I would remember

> * In how many cases in total did the committee take action (or advise the
> WMF to take action)?

we requested user rights changes for the committee or asked for
further information we were not able to obtain ourselves several times
(thanks to Philippe for helping us all the time with this!), but we
never asked/recommended the Board to remove CU/steward rights from
anyone.

> * How many emails did you exchange over the past year on your mailing list?

I'd say at least 500. Could also be 1000 or more, I really can't tell
you any exact numbers and I won't count it.

> * Were you able to send a confirmation with the outcome of the case to
> every complainor?

Except for the cases still under investigation, I guess so. We now
usually also send a confirmation when we receive a request (we didn't
do that in the beginning).

> * Was the person complained about informed every time of the fact they were
> under investigation?

If someone did not make any mistake we do not tell them that someone
complained about them. We contacted them only if we had questions to
them or if we deemed it necessary to explain something to them.

> * Is the process accurately described on meta?

Which process do you mean?

> * Do you have steps in place to ensure every single request gets the follow
> up it needs, if not will that be improved?

We are working on developing a better way of keeping track of the
requests at the moment. However, the technical possibilities are
limited, for security and privacy reasons.

> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> committee?

I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.

>
> This information could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs. I
> suspect that the Board already receives such summary (the committee reports
> directly to the board according to the meta
> page<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission>)
> so an extract from that would probably be easiest. Even if that is not the
> case I have the feeling it should be doable to create these numbers
> afterwards for 2011. That is not only a big win for transparancy, but also
> for future candidate members - they would know what they are getting into.
> Finally, it allows people to evaluate if they trust the committee enough to
> send their complaints to. I know several people who in the past (before the
> current committee probably) have sent complaints but felt it was a black
> box and have no idea what happened to them. That can be quite damaging for
> the image and should be avoided.

Sorry if someone gets the impression of a black box, but as we are
investigating privacy violations, we have to be very careful which
information to share and we prefer to share as little as possible. The
committee works very simple, we receive a complaint, which we confirm
to the complainor, then we discuss if a privacy violation can even be
involved. If not, we decline the request and - if possible - we try to
tell the complainor where they can get help for their problem. If
indeed a privacy violation is possible we investigate on this and then
we have a result whether or not there was a breach of the policy and
we give that result to the complainor, explaining them why we think
there was (or not) a breach of the policy. If we do find a breach of
privacy we would have to discuss what we do about it. But as I said,
we never recommended to the Board to remove any rights from a CU or
steward. I hope that such a recommendation will never be necessary,
but of course we are ready for this, *if* it becomes necessary. :)
This whole investigation process can take a while and can involve
contacting the person about whom the complaint was, if we need to ask
them for clarification on the issue, or if we need to tell them how to
avoid such issues in the future. It can also involve us doing checks
on users ourselves to double-check CU results (of course, in such
cases we inform the local CUs why they see us in the log).

However, when we will finally have set up our technical aids to keep
better track of the cases, we will be able to improve on all this.

Th.

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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 23, 2012, 3:16 AM

Post #14 of 50 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail>wrote:

> > * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> > committee?
>
> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>


To my knowledge, none.

pb

___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe [at] wikimedia

<philippe [at] wikimedia>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


betienne at bellaliant

Apr 23, 2012, 3:19 AM

Post #15 of 50 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint. Let's say 1.

Ebe123


On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> <thogol [at] googlemail>wrote:
>
>>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
>>> committee?
>>
>> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
>> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
>> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>>
>
>
> To my knowledge, none.
>
> pb
>
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe [at] wikimedia
>
> <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 23, 2012, 3:20 AM

Post #16 of 50 (1209 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l. For a
formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.

pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe [at] wikimedia



On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <betienne [at] bellaliant>wrote:

> Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint. Let's say 1.
>
> Ebe123
>
>
> On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> > <thogol [at] googlemail>wrote:
> >
> >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> >>> committee?
> >>
> >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
> >>
> >
> >
> > To my knowledge, none.
> >
> > pb
> >
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > philippe [at] wikimedia
> >
> > <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


lodewijk at effeietsanders

Apr 23, 2012, 3:33 AM

Post #17 of 50 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Exactly, I was referring to formal complaints which probably have the
intention to reaching out to the board.

In any case, I think it would be very helpful if the information Thomas has
provided could be summarized in a short report on meta so that it is also a
template for the future. Perhaps some of the numbers can even be made more
precise (number wizards probably can extract the number of emails more
easily etc - although I realize now that most likely your mailing list has
no archive :) ).

The process I referred to is everything that happens between the receipt of
a complaint about privacy violation and the final action decision taken by
the committee. I.e. "1. Confirm receipt of the complaint. 2. Register
complaint for tracking purposes. 3. Decide if the complaint falls within
scope of the committee..." etc. That would complainors give an idea what
is going to happen with their complaint and what they can expect. Currently
the description is quite vague on meta :)

Thanks for all the answers so far!

Lodewijk

El 23 de abril de 2012 12:20, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia>escribió:

> That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l. For a
> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.
>
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe [at] wikimedia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <betienne [at] bellaliant
> >wrote:
>
> > Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint. Let's say 1.
> >
> > Ebe123
> >
> >
> > On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> > > <thogol [at] googlemail>wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of
> the
> > >>> committee?
> > >>
> > >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> > >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> > >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, none.
> > >
> > > pb
> > >
> > > ___________________
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > Director, Community Advocacy
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > >
> > > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > >
> > > philippe [at] wikimedia
> > >
> > > <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


sterkebak at gmail

Apr 23, 2012, 3:49 AM

Post #18 of 50 (1210 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter
has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it?

Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a
responds about the complaint self, we only got the responds "We don't think
any office action is needed".

Best,

Huib

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia>
wrote:
> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.
>
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe [at] wikimedia
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <betienne [at] bellaliant
>wrote:
>
>> Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint. Let's say 1.
>>
>> Ebe123
>>
>>
>> On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
>> > <thogol [at] googlemail>wrote:
>> >
>> >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of
the
>> >>> committee?
>> >>
>> >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
>> >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
>> >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > To my knowledge, none.
>> >
>> > pb
>> >
>> > ___________________
>> > Philippe Beaudette
>> > Director, Community Advocacy
>> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>> >
>> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
>> >
>> > philippe [at] wikimedia
>> >
>> > <philippe [at] wikimedia>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


nemowiki at gmail

Apr 23, 2012, 3:55 AM

Post #19 of 50 (1213 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

Philippe Beaudette, 23/04/2012 12:20:
> That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l. For a
> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.

What's a "formal complaint" then? I don't see anywhere instruction about
how to file one and all ways I can think of don't seem adequate.

Nemo

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


philippe at wikimedia

Apr 23, 2012, 3:57 AM

Post #20 of 50 (1212 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak [at] gmail> wrote:

> On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter
> has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it?
>
> Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a
> responds about the complaint self, we only got the responds "We don't think
> any office action is needed".
>
> Best,
>
> Huib


Bearing in mind that it's nearly 4AM, but I'm not aware of that letter. If
such a letter was sent, of course, we'll increment that to "1" from zero. :)

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


thomas.dalton at gmail

Apr 23, 2012, 4:29 AM

Post #21 of 50 (1206 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On 23 April 2012 11:06, Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail> wrote:
> Sorry if someone gets the impression of a black box, but as we are
> investigating privacy violations, we have to be very careful which
> information to share and we prefer to share as little as possible.

Transparency and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, the
actual content of complaints is usually going to be confidential, but
that doesn't preclude the process being transparent.

You can clearly document the process that you follow. You can publish
metrics like those Lodewijk suggested (and actual numbers, not just
guesses). It would be nice to have a page on meta that says how many
cases are currently at each point in the process and is kept
up-to-date.

The ombudsmen commission has always felt to me to be the most
cabalistic of all the committees and groups we have. A lot of people
don't know it even exists or what it really does. All I tend to hear
about it is when people are complaining that their emails have gone
into the black box, never to be seen again.

Just because it deals with confidential information doesn't mean that
it shouldn't be held to the same standards of transparency as every
other part of our movement.

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


thogol at googlemail

Apr 23, 2012, 5:02 AM

Post #22 of 50 (1205 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

2012/4/23 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail>:
> Transparency and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, the
> actual content of complaints is usually going to be confidential, but
> that doesn't preclude the process being transparent.

That's why I answered to Lodewijk's questions. I guess the process is
more transparent now.

>
> You can clearly document the process that you follow. You can publish
> metrics like those Lodewijk suggested (and actual numbers, not just
> guesses). It would be nice to have a page on meta that says how many
> cases are currently at each point in the process and is kept
> up-to-date.

You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
you to do. Thanks.

>
> The ombudsmen commission has always felt to me to be the most
> cabalistic of all the committees and groups we have. A lot of people
> don't know it even exists or what it really does. All I tend to hear
> about it is when people are complaining that their emails have gone
> into the black box, never to be seen again.

Well, we are not going to advertise our services to everyone in
person. If the people do not know that we exist, that's not our fault
but the fault of the community. What we are doing is already described
on the Meta page. If someone has sent a complaint and never gets any
answer, then this is of course our fault, and it shouldn't happen. A
little reminder usually does the trick, though. As you know, we are
all not 24/7 OC workers doing nothing else in our lives. It can always
happen that some email gets stuck in spam filters or just gets
overlooked especially on days when you receive a hundred or more
wiki-related emails, which is about every day in the year. I think
what could really help is if we could use the OTRS ticket system for
our work (that's an idea that just now came into my mind)... But I
don't know how secure that is and if it is even possible to set it up
so closed that only the OC members can access those tickets. (Any
suggestions from Philippe about that?)

>
> Just because it deals with confidential information doesn't mean that
> it shouldn't be held to the same standards of transparency as every
> other part of our movement.

Well, traditionally the transparency of the OC was very low, that's
true. We just took over these traditions from our predecessors, but
that doesn't mean that we can't break with these traditions and set up
some new standards. It just needs to be done, which means some work.
However, don't ever expect that we will publish anything case-related,
including people or wiki projects involved.

Th.

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


craig at halo-17

Apr 23, 2012, 5:23 AM

Post #23 of 50 (1212 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:02:29 +0200
> From: Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission
> Message-ID:
> <CAL0e-KVCetcaaKNQuiSwX5ckBnxqw=9_6vhkdj988yPz3wDwEA [at] mail
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> > You can clearly document the process that you follow. You can publish
> > metrics like those Lodewijk suggested (and actual numbers, not just
> > guesses). It would be nice to have a page on meta that says how many
> > cases are currently at each point in the process and is kept
> > up-to-date.
>
> You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
> I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
> you to do. Thanks.
>

I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid
and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a condescending and
passive-aggressive response.

I'm sure you're all very busy but that's no excuse for not continually
striving for a higher standard of transparency and accountability (within
the obvious restrictions that your work imposes).

Regards,
Craig Franklin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


thehelpfulonewiki at gmail

Apr 23, 2012, 5:23 AM

Post #24 of 50 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

On 23 Apr 2012, at 13:02, Thomas Goldammer <thogol [at] googlemail> wrote:

>>
>> You can clearly document the process that you follow. You can publish
>> metrics like those Lodewijk suggested (and actual numbers, not just
>> guesses). It would be nice to have a page on meta that says how many
>> cases are currently at each point in the process and is kept
>> up-to-date.
>
> You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
> I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
> you to do. Thanks.

Touché. I believe that if the process is going to be put on Meta we do need actual numbers as opposed to your guesstimations. Hopefully this shouldn't be too difficult to sort out, if you do some searches on Gmail for all the emails that you have received in the last year from the mailing list you should be able to get a better number of the volume of emails that you got overall in the year.

>
>>
>> The ombudsmen commission has always felt to me to be the most
>> cabalistic of all the committees and groups we have. A lot of people
>> don't know it even exists or what it really does. All I tend to hear
>> about it is when people are complaining that their emails have gone
>> into the black box, never to be seen again.
>
> Well, we are not going to advertise our services to everyone in
> person. If the people do not know that we exist, that's not our fault
> but the fault of the community. What we are doing is already described
> on the Meta page. If someone has sent a complaint and never gets any
> answer, then this is of course our fault, and it shouldn't happen. A
> little reminder usually does the trick, though. As you know, we are
> all not 24/7 OC workers doing nothing else in our lives. It can always
> happen that some email gets stuck in spam filters or just gets
> overlooked especially on days when you receive a hundred or more
> wiki-related emails, which is about every day in the year. I think
> what could really help is if we could use the OTRS ticket system for
> our work (that's an idea that just now came into my mind)... But I
> don't know how secure that is and if it is even possible to set it up
> so closed that only the OC members can access those tickets. (Any
> suggestions from Philippe about that?)

I don't think that OTRS is the necessarily the best option - unless you use it in collaboration with the mailing list, i.e someone sends a complaint to OTRS, the commission discusses on the mailing list and then send out a response to the user. You would be able to easily keep track of what tickets have been answered, but as far as I am aware the OTRS admins are technically able to view all the emails in any queues - so that would be another 12ish people plus devs that would be able to view the tickets. I'm not saying that they would, but bearing in mind a fair number of the OTRS admins are checkusers/oversighters themselves, I think there will be some issues with using OTRS.

>

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


thogol at googlemail

Apr 23, 2012, 5:27 AM

Post #25 of 50 (1205 views)
Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission [In reply to]

It was not meant passive-aggressive. ;) I know that his suggestion is
a good one and I wanted to push him to just do it on Meta. Sorry if
you misunderstood that. ^^

Th.

> I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid
> and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a condescending and
> passive-aggressive response.
>
> I'm sure you're all very busy but that's no excuse for not continually
> striving for a higher standard of transparency and accountability (within
> the obvious restrictions that your work imposes).
>
> Regards,
> Craig Franklin

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