Michael Snow writes: > Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I read those comments primarily as > a defense against a perceived "prosecution" for allegedly violating the > privacy policy.
I don't read them that way - rather as saying "This isn't clearly in violation; it has been working for a long time and has been publicly discussed before, ending in [default] acceptance; we weren't given any notice. What gives?" Brian<[email protected]> writes: > This argument - which is effectively that community members should be > considered Wikimedia Foundation staff members - is very brittle. It is > neither sound nor valid. Do yourself a favor and consider the logic of the > other side. It will save you from confusion later when you realize that you > were the only person who didn't see it earlier. Peter said that he could run whatever was being done on an external server on a WMF machine that [core] developers have access to. What does this have to do with being Foundation staff? Peter Gervai writes: > But we - as huwp - don't stick to this server, as I mentioned, and I'd > gladly put it up on WMF servers, even if this do not really mean or > change anything. But I find it unacceptable that anyone kill off the > stats which was running for plenty of years now, without even trying > to look around. I see that it's pretty easy, since neither of you use > it, it's somebody else's problem. Try to see for a moment like it's > not. > > And since it was okay for the past 5 years I'd be glad if you would > continue the discussion WHILE reverting your changes. I don't believe > a few days would make a difference. This seems like the heart of the matter. It sounds as though hu:wp wants to find a way to continue having access to stats; are happy to make this happen in a way that other devs are comfortable with (and willing to help), but feel slighted. Robert Rhode writes: > Sorry for the abrupt way that things were handled, but erring on the > side of protecting user privacy is generally a good thing. Now that > you are here discussing the matter, I'd hope a reasonable solution can > be found. You said it. While f-l isn't the place to find a technical solution (though this thread looks promising - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-June/043335.html), it may be the right place to discuss how to foreshadow and discuss changes that address the power balance between local and global projects. I can imagine similar changes resulting from adding a global wikimedia policy that is known to contradict policies on a few mid-sized wikis, and then instantly implementing the result. [Peter: would you have considered a mention on this list notice? on wikitech? on hu:wp?] SJ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
