On Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:11:39 PM Chris Egeland wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't the Privacy Policy be a > Proposal? Yes, it's overdue to have, but because it changes rules of the > space (what the space is and isn't allowed to do with information that it > collects), it needs to be approved by the membership.
ya, true, but we can just put a big disclaimer at the top of the page though. > > I think that the current page should be moved off of the SYNHAK:Privacy > Policy page and moved to a non-SYNHAK-namespace until it becomes official. > Generally, I like to keep the SYNHAK:Whatever namespace on the wiki for > official policies and such, which is typical with most other MediaWiki > sites. > > For what it's worth, I personally think that a Privacy Policy should be > something approved by the Board, simply due to the bureaucratic nature of > adopting something that is effectively a legally binding document. Not to > say that the membership shouldn't have input on it (the Board works for the > membership, remember), but most other organizations either have their > Privacy Policies adopted by their Board or Legal Department. For example, > the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy is adopted by their Board of > Trustees. > > I think we should have the following chain of events: > > 1.) Membership and officers collaborate together to build a draft of a > policy to adopt > 2.) Possibly run it by legal counsel if we determine that it's something > that we want to have legally checked over > 3.) Submit the policy to the Board for approval > 4.) Board approves or denies the policy. If they deny, go back to 1, else > go to 5 > 5.) Formally begin following the policy as approved by the Board > > Chris > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Chris Egeland <[email protected]>wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't the Privacy Policy be a > > > > Proposal? Yes, it's overdue to have, but because it changes rules of the > > space (what the space is and isn't allowed to do with information that it > > collects), it needs to be approved by the membership. > > > > I think that the current page should me move off of the SYNHAK:Privacy > > Policy page and moved to a non-SYNHAK-namespace until the revision in > > question passes the Proposal stage. > > > > For what it's worth, I personally think that a Privacy Policy should be > > something approved by the Board, simply due to the bureaucratic nature of > > adopting something that is effectively a legally binding document. Not to > > say that the membership shouldn't have input on it (the Board works for > > the > > membership, remember), but most other organizations either have their > > Privacy Policies adopted by their Board or Legal Department. We don't > > have > > a Legal Department, so the closest thing we have is the Board. > > > > To give you an idea of who approves and implements privacy policies for > > various organizations: > > > > University of Akron: Office of General Counsel (Legal Department) > > Wikimedia Foundation: Board of Trustees > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > On 10/31/2013 04:17 PM, Andrew Buczko wrote: > > > > Nice job on the formatting. > > > > I think what it means is that we can't change our rules to effect > > > > something that has already happened. > > > > Lets say we change our policy to "We're going to sell our customers > > > > information on 31/Oct/2013" Now we can sell any info that NEW customers > > give us, but any customers that gave us info prior to 31/Oct/2013 can not > > be sold. > > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Omar Rassi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agreed good catch. I did some editing, grammar fixes, and formatting so > >> > >> it reads a little easier and there aren't so many redundant statements. I > >> also added a date so that people can see the effective date of the > >> policy. > >> > >> My only question is this: > >> How are we going to separate which information falls under which policy > >> > >> revision as per the following statement: > >> *"changes will only apply to activities and information on* > >> > >> *a going forward, not retroactive basis."* > >> * > >> * > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected] > >> > >> > wrote: > >>> On Thursday, October 31, 2013 01:40:41 PM Andrew Buczko wrote: > >>> > I just saw the the privacy policy link for our page is missing and or > >>> > >>> broke: > >>> > https://synhak.org/wiki/SYNHAK:Privacy_policy > >>> > >>> > This was discussed on 2013-01-24: > >>> https://synhak.org/wiki/Proposals/Open > >>> > >>> > Did this just never happen? I did some searching but was unable to > >>> > >>> find any > >>> > >>> > drafts or copies of it on our site. > >>> > > >>> > I went ahead and edited in a Privacy Policy just so that we have one. > >>> > >>> I > >>> > >>> > encourage everyone to review it and make suggestions. Since this is > >>> > >>> just > >>> > >>> > one that I copied off of the internet and may not fit perfectly for > >>> > >>> SynHak. > >>> > >>> > Andy > >>> > >>> huh, good catch. As far as I know, the only privacy policy we have is > >>> > >>> the one > >>> incorporated into our bylaws: > >>> > >>> "Any member records collected will be kept confidential except to > >>> execute > >>> Chapter 8, Inspection Rights or if prior written permission for public > >>> release > >>> is given by the member." > >>> > >>> That only applies to members though. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing > > [email protected]https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
