I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force' On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr <jjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again? > > On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking > time to review these concerns. > > > >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF > Legal. > > Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time > ago > > > >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost > certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal > intervention > > If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to > me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone > like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to > silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome. > > The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual > editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of > effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened > to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high > ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014 > arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015 > election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the > community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration > committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy > Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the > resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if > the arbcom and the community process can not? > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on >> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the >> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could >> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more >> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal >> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's >> interpretation of its privacy policy. >> >> Pine >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII >>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back >>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might >>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it >>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not >>> allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators >>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that >>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very >>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm >>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. >>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with >>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF >>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve >>>> themselves. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have >>>> significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be >>>> issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but >>>> realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable >>>> future. >>>> >>>> Pine >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>> please visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
