On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Bimmler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > My problem wasn't in regard to a biography, but it was a "BLP issue" > under > > Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard to some things written about > me > > in the Wikipedia namespace). > > > > Was this part of a larger dispute that was already being considered by > the ArbCom? No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list. > I'm sure the process has changed in the years since, though. Does the > > current process ask people if they're satisfied? > > > > If you mean "ask" as in, do we work like Microsoft which puts a "If > this response was helpful, click here, if not, please click here to > send an email to my manager" (or along these lines) at the end of each > support email, then no. Yeah, that was my question. However, we assume that people who are not satisfied will follow up by > way of response and then, see above... > > The "Microsoft option" is rather impractical, as there is no hierarchy > in OTRS, we don't have "supervisors" or "managers" to whom emails > could be referred. It'd be nice for statistical purposes, in order to gauge how well you're doing, though. Ultimately it'd probably lead to a system with "supervisors" or "managers", since that's a much better way of doing things. But again, each email includes a footer that says that this response > comes from a group of volunteers and that formal follow-up would need > to be done in a certified letter to the foundation. Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
