Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 I still think that more transparency is possible here and there on this issue. 
Of course, we could have started a long process to get there by now but time is 
limited and precisely because we should provide a "healthy image of the 
movement" my goal so far has been to avoid using OTRS with third parties as 
much as possible.
In other words, I have realized it's just easier to find ways to avoid OTRS. 
For example I prefer to encourage the presence of public copyright information 
when privacy is not an option and I point out that this is actually on the long 
term less time-consuming than dealing with the OTRS interface.

 I hope that this will reduce the workload on the OTRS system ,so more people 
can try to improve it, it's the best compromise I could provide. I was asked to 
be a OTRS agent at a certain point, but I think I can be more productive at the 
moment creating such alternative pathways than entering the system. I wish all 
the best to those who want to do something.
Alex   Il mercoledì 22 luglio 2020, 14:16:04 CEST, Amaroon 
 ha scritto:  
 
 On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 11:05, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is
> there an ANI for OTRS specifically?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

To clarify: the OTRS agent referred to ANI as the place where an issue
should be resolved. Indeed it was not helpful, as the issue has already
passed that stage.
However, the part of the correspondence relevant to this discussion about
the accountability of OTRS is the second part of the sentence:
"hope you're not hit in the face with a boomerang."

I think it needs no explanation how inappropriate and hostile that sentence
is. As OTRS is a primary point of contact, somewhat equivalent to customer
service at for-profit companies, this kind of communication is not painting
a healthy image of the movement.

Aron


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Aron Manning
> > Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
> >
> > I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief
> answer:
> >
> > > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> > boomerang*.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely, ...
> >
> > The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> > thought about contacting OTRS since then.
> >
> >
> > Aron
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Amaroon]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 11:05, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is
> there an ANI for OTRS specifically?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>

To clarify: the OTRS agent referred to ANI as the place where an issue
should be resolved. Indeed it was not helpful, as the issue has already
passed that stage.
However, the part of the correspondence relevant to this discussion about
the accountability of OTRS is the second part of the sentence:
"hope you're not hit in the face with a boomerang."

I think it needs no explanation how inappropriate and hostile that sentence
is. As OTRS is a primary point of contact, somewhat equivalent to customer
service at for-profit companies, this kind of communication is not painting
a healthy image of the movement.

Aron


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Aron Manning
> > Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
> >
> > I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief
> answer:
> >
> > > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> > boomerang*.
> > >
> > > Yours sincerely, ...
> >
> > The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> > thought about contacting OTRS since then.
> >
> >
> > Aron
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Peter Southwood]

Could even be that no-one has gotten around to writing any policies and 
guidance,  and everyone is just winging it with very little oversight. How 
could we know?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Dennis During
Sent: 20 July 2020 00:15
To: effeietsand...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to
psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said,
especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS
isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency,
that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we
shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try
to explain that.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS>]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >   or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >   or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not going to waste further energy on that.
>
> Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
> issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > htt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Peter Southwood]

That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is there 
an ANI for OTRS specifically?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:59
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

Hoi,
How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gnangarra]

The WMF has spent the last 4 years developing a strategy to take us to 2030
everything was on the table.   OTRS is the one chink in that process that
needs to address community concerns I'm all for improving every system we
use.

I think it would be good if someone stepped up to hold some discussions and
walk through on how the system works, and what we as agents deal with.
 It's best that the community is informed on the processes so that they can
get an understanding and help address concerns being raised as well as
collaborate on finding solutions where the system is falling over.

The starting point must be who, where within the WMF structures is there
oversight of OTRS given its agents are speaking for the WMF as well.


On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 07:03, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general
> > info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
> > questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
> > argumentative and inaccurate.
>
> Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the
> discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than
> once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS
> photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a
> form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions
> queue.
>
> For that, my apologies to Tomasz.
>
> > Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
> > reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement.
> But
> > it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.
>
> I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several
> times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that
> fickle.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan  wrote:
>
> Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general
> info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
> questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
> argumentative and inaccurate.

Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the
discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than
once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS
photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a
form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions
queue.

For that, my apologies to Tomasz.

> Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
> reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But
> it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.

I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several
times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that
fickle.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Nathan]

Perfect encapsulation of what's gone wrong here in this debate. Andy makes
some really solid points; OTRS is a black hole, has a history of being
clubby, etc. That history has a lot of smudge marks on it going all the way
back to wiki-en IRC channels and the overlap between IRC admins and OTRS
admins and how it all fed into toxicity and secrecy.

The end goal - transparency in OTRS - is therefore a no brainer, but the
strategy being deployed to make progress is ineffective.

Below is an example of why: Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents
on *general
info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer
questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both
argumentative and inaccurate. Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine
reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But
it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.

This is a common dynamic on Wikipedia itself, and a big part of why people
burnout and stuff doesn't get done. No one is inspired to collaborate from
what reads as angry, argumentative accusations liberally applied to all
participants.

Whether you agree with the ultimate objective or not, it's easier to just
disengage.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
>
> > In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
> > special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions
>
> But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you
> refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple
> in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the
> request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came
> to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed,
> and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.
>
> Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how
> ORS operates across our movement.
>
> And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of
> this thread mentones any specific case.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[ZI Jony]

All points has been raised here are valid points. We should raise a
discussion on wiki (maybe OTRS talk or Wikimedia Forum). As Amir said all
CU and OS policies are available locally, then why OTRS policies should not
be there.


Regards,
ZI Jony

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 12:47 PM Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.  Any and all
> > information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> > workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> > representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> > confidential.
> >
> >
> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I
> understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules
> for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of
> mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply
> follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of
> permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis.
> WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity -
> and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright
> related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to
> time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
>
> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Kalman Hajdu]

This is a brava step to the end of the whole wikipedia project. More and
more mystery less and less truthfulness more and more disillusioned
editor.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:20 PM Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > We would be better off if
> > > there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
>
> Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out
> a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion.
>
> >
> > > I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the
> > > absence of those things
> >
> > You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and
> > in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to
> > me motives or intentions that are not mine.
> >
> > I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what
> > purpose it is supposed to achieve.
> >
> > Please do not do so.
> >
>
> My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems
> that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> more clearly.
>
>
> >
> > > But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish
> > > policies and procedures going forward.
> >
> > This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees
> > OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that
> > is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can
> > review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or
> > additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting
> > within them.
> >
>
> I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not
> in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has
> access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems
> worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think)
> everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than
> optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process.
>
> >
> > > For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but,
> > precisely
> > > because of the absence of policies
> >
> > This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there
> > are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a
> > non-public wiki.
> >
>
> Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the
> absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If
> memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as
> much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and
> trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as
> well, which made internal discussion there challenging too.
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Dennis During]

I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to
psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said,
especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS
isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency,
that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we
shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try
to explain that.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >   or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >   or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not going to waste further energy on that.
>
> Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
> issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
>
> Lodewijk
>
>
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
> > @pigsonthewing
> > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 05:04, Gnangarra  wrote:

> This page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS answers some the questions
> including a list of OTRS administrators

I don't think it fully answers any of the ten questions discussed in
this thread.

For example, while it has a list of OTRS administrators it does not -
unlike say, the pages about amins on en.Wikipedia or Commons - say
what the role of those admins is, or what limits are placed on their
actions, It does not say who appoints them (or who can un-appoint
them), or to what policies they must adhere. And it does not tell us
who else might have access to the same or higher (c/f 'crats) levels
of admin permissions that they have.

Thanks for your other comments.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the
> trigger for his question was a case on Commons.

I have already stated that this assumption is false, when someone else
made it in this very thread.

> In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
> special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions

But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you
refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple
in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the
request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came
to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed,
and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.

Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how
ORS operates across our movement.

And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of
this thread mentones any specific case.

> Add to this that
> there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents

Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the lack of transparency about
how OTRS operates?

> If you want to be
> an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your
> friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply
> checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you
> have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians)
> and that's it... It really does not need any extra  regulations, as it
> works as it is now.

You say "one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is
OK...", but nowhere is that documented publicly as the process that is
followed.

Furthermore, anecdotal evidence also suggests that that is not all
that there is to the process.

One of the other questions that remains unanswered is how the people
who conduct this process are themselves appointed and overseen.

> How it is practically screened has been already answered
> several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly

If it is not written down "clearly", show us what is written down in outline.

Why is this so difficult?

> So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it
> more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules
> that may cover every possible case

This is a straw man; no-one is asking for "rules that may cover every
possible case"; and no one is asking for any new rules to be written;
we are asking to see the rules and policies *that already exist*.

> And the system will never be 100% transparent - as
> its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.

...and no-one is asking to see anything that falls under the general
WMF privacy policy umbrella; indeed, I have explicitly excluded such
material when describing what I want to see.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Tomasz Ganicz]

I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the
trigger for his question was a case on Commons.

In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no
special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions - they
just inform about rules, customs, help newbies with technical issues and
sometimes try to help or solve the problem to satisfy both - a plaintiff
and the local wiki rules. Basically this was the idea of OTRS when it was
created - so the feeling was that strict rules for just answering the
questions and helping newbies are not very much needed. Add to this that
there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents - as this work tends
to be boring, repetitive and not rewarding at all - so you may understand
why entry barrier for agents is kept as low as possible. If you want to be
an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your
friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply
checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you
have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians)
and that's it... It really does not need any extra  regulations, as it
works as it is now.

However, for permission queues is the other issue - because acceptance or
refusal of copyright agreement/claim is usually final, so it is quite a
power, so I understand Andy's concern that there are no strict rules which
are public. How it is practically screened has been already answered
several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly
- it was just developed naturally over time and consist of
a) general copyright rules on Commons - which are already very complex and
unclear - sometimes even contradictory with eachself and also they change
over time, mainly in to direction to be more and more strict which is
sometimes called "copyright paranoia"
b) local copyright laws - which are also very complex and unclear in many
jurisdictions and moreover one needs to know local language and local legal
system to properly understand it and apply
c) some practical customs, habits and technical rules related strictly to
handling agreements via OTRS - the later is partially made public - I have
already sent the links to the relevant pages but it was ignored - and
partially made non-public.

So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it
more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules
that may cover every possible case - as they tend to be sometimes very
complex and individual. And the system will never be 100% transparent - as
its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.


pon., 20 lip 2020 o 09:03 effe iets anders 
napisał(a):

> The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There
> are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ
> across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl,
> permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently.
> If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may
> be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level,
> I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I
> mentioned.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti 
> wrote:
>
> > I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> > about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too
> generic
> > for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
> >
> > ok if it helps, here are some of them
> > 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with
> instruction
> > with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> > legal issues, mail about copyright etc
> > 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it
> > regularly done?
> > 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on
> > content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag?
> > 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?
> > 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal
> > information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of
> > arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)
> > 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got
> > the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
> >
> > I think it's enough for now.
> >
> > Alex
> > Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> > effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I rather have
> > > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > > opportunity

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[effe iets anders]

The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There
are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ
across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl,
permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently.
If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may
be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level,
I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I
mentioned.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti 
wrote:

> I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic
> for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
>
> ok if it helps, here are some of them
> 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
> with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> legal issues, mail about copyright etc
> 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it
> regularly done?
> 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on
> content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag?
> 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?
> 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal
> information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of
> arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)
> 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got
> the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
>
> I think it's enough for now.
>
> Alex
> Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
> >
> > I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> > said they are.
> >
> > As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> > clear about my wish to see them.
> >
> > > This is why I
> > > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
> all
> > > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
> >
> > It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> > on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
> >
> > > There are actually a few policies
> > > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
> >
> > That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> > which I have already referred.
> >
> > > There is some stuff about
> > > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
> nothing
> > > that exciting.
> >
> > Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> > should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> > discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> > then... Nothing.
> >
> > > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> > try
> > > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
> >
> > I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
> >
> >5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> >
> >7 what is the process for the community to remove an
> >  individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
> >  or abide by policy?
> >
> >9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
> >  or remove their permissions?
> >
> >10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> >
> > are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> > focus?
> >
> >
> First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
> not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Gnangarra]

Full disclosure I am an OTRS agent, I am not speaking on behalf of OTRS I
referencing only public information, or personal experiences

This page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS answers some the questions
including a list of OTRS administrators , the last update to that page
which was marked for translation one can presume its been reviewed at that
stage as correct was 12 March 2020

For a full list of OTRS agents https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Users ,
though it doesn't say what queues individual agents have access to.

There is a page for the policy on accessing OTRS
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy

There is an activity test, agents who have not answered any tickets for 6
months can have their access removed see
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Activity_policy

The OTRSwiki has guides on how to answer almost every type of email that is
received, and when to defer emails to other queues. There are pre-prepared
answers available to the agents when answering, they can modify those
answers or write a fresh response themselves.

You can ask any OTRS agent to review a ticket,   and you could always
escalate it by contacting an OTRS admin if you had any specific concerns
with the actions of OTRS agent including the way they dealt with a ticket.

Internally OTRS agents have options to seek help;

   - can leave a note/comment on the ticket
   - can ask on the OTRSwiki for advice
   - can ask on the OTRS email list,

You can also choose to let someone else answer it, or forward it to another
queue, to me common sense says if you dont know dont answer or seek out
help beforehand .  OTRS agents are responsible for any edits make to
articles on the project. Anything that also needs an on project action must
comply with the projects policies, including BLP, Notability, and
verifiable citations  to make changes. If its edit warring or bypassing a
block then the person is referred back with links to the project dispute
processes.  I spent the first couple of weeks when I joined OTRS just
watching tickets and following/participating in discussions before I
started answering any tickets.

From what I've seen I dont think a public log is practicable
because sensitive information can be in the email header and email address
may not be public, there is also a considerable amount of
junk/spam/phishing emails that also come through the system. Every ticket
gets a confirmation email back with the ticket number.

I hope this helps with answering the questions being raised.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 06:18, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

>  I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions
> about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic
> for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
>
> ok if it helps, here are some of them
> 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
> with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of
> legal issues, mail about copyright etc2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is
> it a peer-review process? is it regularly done?3. do we have a policy that
> impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS
> flag?
> 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?5. is
> there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information
> related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and
> maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)6. is there a
> open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link
> to the request and how many queue they are handling?
> I think it's enough for now.
>
> Alex
>Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>  On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I rather have
> > > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> > opportunity
> > > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> > I have not made explicit.
> >
> > Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
> >
> > > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
> assumed
> >
> > No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
> >
> > > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
> Andy
> > > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
> >
> > It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> > ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> > comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> > know?
> >
> > > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> > on
> > > the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about 
OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic for sure 
we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?

ok if it helps, here are some of them
1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction with 
how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, 
mail about copyright etc2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review 
process? is it regularly done?3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal 
constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 
4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?5. is there 
a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a 
ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is 
regarding some content or some other topic?)6. is there a open log of OTRS 
operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and 
how many queue they are handling?
I think it's enough for now.

Alex
   Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders 
 ha scritto:  
 
 On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> >
> > I rather have
> > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> opportunity
> > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
>
> You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> I have not made explicit.
>
> Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
>
> > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
>
> No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
>
> > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
> > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
>
> It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> know?
>
> > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> on
> > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
>
> I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> said they are.
>
> As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> clear about my wish to see them.
>
> > This is why I
> > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
> > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
>
> It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
>
> > There are actually a few policies
> > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
>
> That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> which I have already referred.
>
> > There is some stuff about
> > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
> > that exciting.
>
> Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> then... Nothing.
>
> > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> try
> > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
>
> I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
>
>    5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
>
>    7 what is the process for the community to remove an
>      individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
>      or abide by policy?
>
>    9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
>      or remove their permissions?
>
>    10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> focus?
>
>
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
not going to waste further energy on that.

Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.

Lodewijk


> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[effe iets anders]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> >
> > I rather have
> > that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
> opportunity
> > to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
>
> You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
> I have not made explicit.
>
> Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
>
> > My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
>
> No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
>
> > where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
> > would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
>
> It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
> ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
> comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
> know?
>
> > I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
> on
> > the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
>
> I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
> said they are.
>
> As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
> clear about my wish to see them.
>
> > This is why I
> > noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
> > kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
>
> It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
> on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
>
> > There are actually a few policies
> > linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> > simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
>
> That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
> which I have already referred.
>
> > There is some stuff about
> > privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
> > that exciting.
>
> Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
> should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
> discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
> then... Nothing.
>
> > OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
> try
> > to analyze that with overly broad questions.
>
> I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
>
>5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
>
>7 what is the process for the community to remove an
>   individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
>   or abide by policy?
>
>9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
>   or remove their permissions?
>
>10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their
> focus?
>
>
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm
not going to waste further energy on that.

Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying
issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.

Lodewijk


> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders  wrote:
>
> I rather have
> that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity
> to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.

You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which
I have not made explicit.

Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.

> My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed

No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.

> where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
> would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.

It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are
''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a
comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we
know?

> I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on
> the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.

I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have
said they are.

As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more
clear about my wish to see them.

> This is why I
> noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
> kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.

It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked
on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.

> There are actually a few policies
> linked at [[m:OTRS ]], that are
> simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).

That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to
which I have already referred.

> There is some stuff about
> privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
> that exciting.

Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content
should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are
discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but
then... Nothing.

> OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try
> to analyze that with overly broad questions.

I do not accept that questions such as, for example:

   5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?

   7 what is the process for the community to remove an
  individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold
  or abide by policy?

   9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent,
  or remove their permissions?

   10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[effe iets anders]

We're dealing with a diverse community here, and at the same time people
often want to imply information without making it explicit. I rather have
that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.

My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed,
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.

I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter. This is why I
noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist. There are actually a few policies
linked at [[m:OTRS <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS>]], that are
simply copied there (Access, Activity policies). There is some stuff about
privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
that exciting.
There is plenty of other 'stuff' on that wiki - which may or may not have
to be confidential. I wouldn't be against someone combing through that and
looking what can be published - at their own peril. The point is, nobody
seems willing or able to do that. These pages have accumulated over the
years, and it's simply not going to help anyone to triplicate that effort.
I'm not fundamentally against it, I just don't think it's a good use of
time and energy. I for sure ain't gonna do that, even if you paid me for
it.

OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try
to analyze that with overly broad questions. I suspect you could spend a
few years worth of research on understanding it. That is why I tried to get
at the bottom of what Andy actually wants, so that I can try to help with
that. Given that Andy seems unwilling to make the questions narrower (my
interpretation) - that ends this conversation on my side, as I have little
more to contribute.

Lodewijk

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:25 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as
> that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get
> an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question
> may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful
> anyway.
> This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know
> the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not
> really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than
> wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about
> something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system.
> What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information
> has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was
> asked in the first place.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Pete Forsyth
> Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
> where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
> are reliably adhered to.
>
> It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
> discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
> happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
> amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
> they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
> your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
>
> Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
> could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
> think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
> rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
> or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
>
> -Pete
> --
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Since it seems
> > > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> > > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this
> point
> > > more clearly.
> >
> > Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27
> February:
> >
> > #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
> >
> > We need answers to t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Peter Southwood]

Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that 
- no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an 
answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be 
worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful anyway.
This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the 
answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really 
matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an 
answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I 
considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was 
surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been 
forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the 
first place.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pete Forsyth
Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
are reliably adhered to.

It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.

Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Since it seems
> > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> > more clearly.
>
> Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
> answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
>
> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> public?
> 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
> 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
> (or reworded for clarity)?
> 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
> 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
> OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
> permissions?
> 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister
> projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels
> of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions
> are confidential.
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
>
> You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in
> it, when you replied:
>
>Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in
> the interests of OTRS
>agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of
> questions in a
>forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing
> policies and a process
>for amending policies)
>
> shortly after I posted it.
>
> Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Pete Forsyth]

Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
are reliably adhered to.

It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.

Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > Since it seems
> > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> > more clearly.
>
> Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
> answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
>
> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> public?
> 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
> 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
> (or reworded for clarity)?
> 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
> 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
> OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
> permissions?
> 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
>
> Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister
> projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels
> of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions
> are confidential.
>
> #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
>
> Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
>
> You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in
> it, when you replied:
>
>Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in
> the interests of OTRS
>agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of
> questions in a
>forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing
> policies and a process
>for amending policies)
>
> shortly after I posted it.
>
> Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Since it seems
> that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
> more clearly.

Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:

#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#

We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
answered, above, some arising from that discussion):

1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
(or reworded for clarity)?
5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
(including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
permissions?
10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister
projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels
of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions
are confidential.

#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#

Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.

You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in
it, when you replied:

   Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in
the interests of OTRS
   agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of
questions in a
   forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing
policies and a process
   for amending policies)

shortly after I posted it.

Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
> > We would be better off if
> > there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
>
> Indeed.
>

Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out
a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion.

>
> > I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the
> > absence of those things
>
> You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and
> in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to
> me motives or intentions that are not mine.
>
> I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what
> purpose it is supposed to achieve.
>
> Please do not do so.
>

My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems
that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point
more clearly.


>
> > But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish
> > policies and procedures going forward.
>
> This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees
> OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that
> is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can
> review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or
> additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting
> within them.
>

I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not
in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has
access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems
worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think)
everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than
optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process.

>
> > For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but,
> precisely
> > because of the absence of policies
>
> This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there
> are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a
> non-public wiki.
>

Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the
absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If
memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as
much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and
trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as
well, which made internal discussion there challenging too.

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> We would be better off if
> there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS

Indeed.

> I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the
> absence of those things

You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and
in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to
me motives or intentions that are not mine.

I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what
purpose it is supposed to achieve.

Please do not do so.

> But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish
> policies and procedures going forward.

This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees
OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that
is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can
review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or
additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting
within them.

> For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but, precisely
> because of the absence of policies

This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there
are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a
non-public wiki.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Pete Forsyth]

I believe there's an important point about OTRS to discuss, but the present
framing -- rooted in a challenging examination of the issue's history -- is
making it difficult to get at.

OTRS agents, both individually and as part of a collective, have a
tremendous influence over the perception of Wikipedia and Wikimedia by
those with whom they interact. They interact not only with a large *number* of
individuals, but also with some highly *influential* individuals (i.e.,
people deemed notable enough to be covered in our projects, or to serve as
official photographers of those individuals, etc.)

WIth great power comes great responsibility. So as I see it, this is a
situation in which clearly articulated policies, accompanied by clear
processes to permit influence of those policies, and commentary on the
implementation of those policies, would be ideal. We would be better off if
there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS, and if OTRS
were more accessible for comment by individual Wikimedians, and had good
internal processes for handling those comments.

On that much, I think Andy would agree with me; but beyond that point, I
think we diverge. I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the
absence of those things, and given the history of OTRS, as described by
others in this thread, I'm not sure that's a reasonable objective.

But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish
policies and procedures going forward.

For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but, precisely
because of the absence of policies, I reduced my activity to essentially
nothing, and I was eventually dropped from the team. (As a paid Wikipedia
trainer/consultant, I had opportunities to offer professional services to
those seeking OTRS assistance. This is not something I ever did, but I felt
that even the perception that I might be doing so would have been harmful
to Wikimedia and to OTRS. Since there were no ethical policies offering
guidance for somebody like me, the safest course of action was to pull
away.)

-Pete
--
User:Peteforsyth


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:36 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 00:09, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> >
> > Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful.
>
> Do you mean to suggest that the current level of secrecy is necessary?
>
> > I
> > would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given
> > his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be
> > available on meta.
>
> Apparently they are not, they are on a closed wiki; and so secret.
>
> > If that is not the case, that is more likely due to
> > laziness and/or lack of time than by design
>
> I have been asking for them since February.
>
> > so if you know of policies
> > where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for
> > objections to publish it, and lets rectify.
>
> We were told the matter had been raised on the private OTRS mailing
> list, in February, and that "several of us [on the mailing list] want
> to be involved in any follow up". Nonetheless, no response from that
> discussion has been forthcoming, and neither the editor who said they
> had raised it in the mailing list, nor the one who I quote here, has
> responded to requests for updates.
>
> > It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions
> > queues.
>
> No; although this originally came to light due to a misapplication of
> the policy in relation to Commons, the questions apply to OTRS across
> the movement
>
> > I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for
>
> All of them. Every single word of OTRS policy, guideline and
> boilerplate, that is not of necessity confidential due to containing
> personal information.
>
> > is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you
> > expected much different.
>
> I expected transparency of the standard common throughout the rest of
> our movement.
>
> > the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this.
>
> I very strongly disagree. But if we /cannot/ give any answer to
> questions like "what are OTRS' rules and policies?" or "how is OTRS
> overseen, and who by?", then that would highlight even more serious
> issues.
>
>
> More generally, I note that the discussion on Commons continues:
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Redux%2C_June_2020
>
> albeit with more heat that light, and that accusations about my
> motives are now being flung about. Still the questions have not been
> answered. Although we have been told, in the last hour or so "we do
> not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does
> [sic]".
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 00:09, effe iets anders  wrote:
>
> Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful.

Do you mean to suggest that the current level of secrecy is necessary?

> I
> would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given
> his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be
> available on meta.

Apparently they are not, they are on a closed wiki; and so secret.

> If that is not the case, that is more likely due to
> laziness and/or lack of time than by design

I have been asking for them since February.

> so if you know of policies
> where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for
> objections to publish it, and lets rectify.

We were told the matter had been raised on the private OTRS mailing
list, in February, and that "several of us [on the mailing list] want
to be involved in any follow up". Nonetheless, no response from that
discussion has been forthcoming, and neither the editor who said they
had raised it in the mailing list, nor the one who I quote here, has
responded to requests for updates.

> It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions
> queues.

No; although this originally came to light due to a misapplication of
the policy in relation to Commons, the questions apply to OTRS across
the movement

> I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for

All of them. Every single word of OTRS policy, guideline and
boilerplate, that is not of necessity confidential due to containing
personal information.

> is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you
> expected much different.

I expected transparency of the standard common throughout the rest of
our movement.

> the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this.

I very strongly disagree. But if we /cannot/ give any answer to
questions like "what are OTRS' rules and policies?" or "how is OTRS
overseen, and who by?", then that would highlight even more serious
issues.


More generally, I note that the discussion on Commons continues:

   
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Redux%2C_June_2020

albeit with more heat that light, and that accusations about my
motives are now being flung about. Still the questions have not been
answered. Although we have been told, in the last hour or so "we do
not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does
[sic]".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[effe iets anders]

Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful. I
would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given
his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be
available on meta. If that is not the case, that is more likely due to
laziness and/or lack of time than by design - so if you know of policies
where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for
objections to publish it, and lets rectify. I agree with Tomek that your
line of answering with non-answers bring up conspiracies.

Andy: I'm sorry that you're unhappy about your experiences with OTRS. It
seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions
queues. I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for (although
I get the gist). If you're talking about policies related to how
permissions are handled (what threshold are we using, what level of
scrutiny, etc), I would say that in the end, that is up to the Commons (or
alternative receiving) community.
If you're talking behavior, I'm indeed not sure if we have much 'policy'
other than some guidelines and common sense.

From the page it looks like there were multiple people willing to help pull
together the relevant pages and documentation. But you're right that this
is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you
expected much different.

All in all, I'm afraid there are no hard black-and-white answers that
people can give you to these questions, because the questions are too
broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this. I know that is not
satisfactory, but there is little use in pretending it's any different.

Now I should note that I'm not super active on OTRS, and especially not on
the permissions queues - so it may well be that I have overlooked something
super obvious. But I would be highly surprised.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:26 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 10:05, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett 
> > napisał(a):
> >
> > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all
> OTRS
> > > > > agents sign.
> > >
> > > > Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
> > >
> > > It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
>
> > What evidence?
>
> * OTRS policies, stored on the OTRS wiki, are not public
>
> * The questions asked in February have still not been answered
>
> *  A post from Jonatan to this list, saying "I'm unable to answer this
> due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign."
>
> > General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are
> > made public in most wikis
>
> Again; that is not what is being asked.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Peter Southwood]

Quite possible I am mistaken, but I thought OTRS was separate from WP, which 
would make en:wp:ANI irrelevant.
Chreers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 10:55
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia?

I don't understand that question.
The cited answer was received from .

If not, Which ANI?
>
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].

Cheers,
Aron


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Aron Manning]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia?

I don't understand that question.
The cited answer was received from .

If not, Which ANI?
>
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].

Cheers,
Aron


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
>
>
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
>
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
>
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Peter Southwood]

Context is necessary to understand this.
If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad 
wrote:

> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.


I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:

> Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
>
> Yours sincerely, ...

The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
thought about contacting OTRS since then.


Aron
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Aron Manning]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad 
wrote:

> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.


I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:

> Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
>
> Yours sincerely, ...

The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
thought about contacting OTRS since then.


Aron
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 10:05, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
> czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett 
> napisał(a):
>
> > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
> >
> > > > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > > > agents sign.
> >
> > > Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
> >
> > It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.

> What evidence?

* OTRS policies, stored on the OTRS wiki, are not public

* The questions asked in February have still not been answered

*  A post from Jonatan to this list, saying "I'm unable to answer this
due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign."

> General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are
> made public in most wikis

Again; that is not what is being asked.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Tomasz Ganicz]

czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett 
napisał(a):

> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:
>
> > > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > > agents sign.
>
> > Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
>
> It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
>

What evidence? Again - OTRS wiki contains mainly technical stuff - such as
some basic advices how to answer properly to e-mails,  how to avoid typical
mistakes, boilerplates for typical, redundant questions + some discussions
about technical boundaries of what could be accept and what not regarding
copyright agreements (for example how to be sure that agreement comes from
person who can really sing it) and when and how to add OTRS  copyright
templates. This is made not public - first of all as discussions about
disputable cases contain quite often personal details, and there are some
"tricks" how to recognize fraudulent agreements, which if made public,
could have made life easier for potential  impositors.

General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are
made public in most wikis, and that are real rules that are followed by
OTRS agents responsible for  permission queues. See for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission

or

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomoc:Pozwolenia_na_wykorzystanie

and most complicated - on Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz  wrote:

> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.

> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...

It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.

> Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there
> are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility
> aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals

No special rules, apart from [list of special rules]?

> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.

Indeed - but I'm not asking about just privacy issues.


-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 18:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad
 wrote:

> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS 
> agents sign.

So who is able to answer it?

>  I believe OTRS falls under the Communications committee’s purview,

There is nothing sayng so on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee

> and perhaps T

...nor on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Ciell Wikipedia]

I agree with Tomek here.

And let me emphasize that not all OTRS admins have access to all queues: in
fact, I think only the admins do. OTRS is a very fast system with queues
per project and again per language, and access is given per queue. A queue
is mostly created per Wikimedia project and language, except for the
subject-related queue like WLX which is just for the competitions, and
maybe chapters and WMF. Most of us only have access to a few queues, if
more then one.
But this access comes with knowledge, so if you are concerned about a
person's knowledge on the subject of the emails they are handling, just
reach out to one of the OTRS admins and express your concerns.

Vriendelijke groet,
Ciell


Op di 7 jul. 2020 om 08:47 schreef Tomasz Ganicz :

> pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad 
> napisał(a):
>
> > Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.  Any and all
> > information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> > workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> > representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> > confidential.
> >
> >
> Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I
> understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules
> for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of
> mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply
> follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of
> permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis.
> WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity -
> and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright
> related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to
> time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
>
> Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
> Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
> to OTRS.
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Tomasz Ganicz]

pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad 
napisał(a):

> Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
>
> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.  Any and all
> information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> confidential.
>
>
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I
understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules
for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of
mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply
follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of
permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis.
WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity -
and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright
related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to
time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.

Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman
Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related
to OTRS.


-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Most likely since tickets can be discussed in detail on the wiki amongst 
agents, and therefore a protective silence on the entire wiki has been put in 
place.

For the other questions (such as how to remove another user as an agent), OTRS 
admins are not really admins as in the normal wiki-way, but more like "rulers 
of OTRS". Their word is law (kinda). So, to change any of this, they (or WMF 
staffers) would need to do it.

--
Jonatan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Amir Sarabadani]

I understand but my question is "why". There is no other volunteer group
that has a private policy. How is it different from CU and OS?

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:56 PM Jonatan Svensson Glad <
gladjona...@outlook.com> wrote:

> At the bottom of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/ you can see that there
> is a link called "Confidentiality notice” <
> https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Project:General_disclaimer>. What is
> stated in that confidentiality notice is also confidential, since it is
> located on the wiki. But https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 is the
> actual agreement singed by OTRS agents to gain access ot he OTRS software
> and the wiki.
>
> It is also stated in the footer of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/:
> "Please be aware that this is a private wiki, so content should not be
> shared externally.”
>
> --
> Jonatan Svensson Glad
> Josve05a
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

At the bottom of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/ you can see that there is a 
link called "Confidentiality notice” 
. What is 
stated in that confidentiality notice is also confidential, since it is located 
on the wiki. But https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 is the actual agreement 
singed by OTRS agents to gain access ot he OTRS software and the wiki.

It is also stated in the footer of https://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/: "Please be 
aware that this is a private wiki, so content should not be shared externally.”

--
Jonatan Svensson Glad
Josve05a
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Nathan]

OTRS has always seemed modeled after our wikis; self-selecting,
self-perpetuating, self-governing... Often inconsistent, and always opaque
to outsiders. There was a time when this was regarded as a feature. As
other functions have become more transparent and accountable, OTRS has kept
a low profile.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:42 PM Amir Sarabadani  wrote:

> Hello,
> This is the first time that I heard that the rules and policies of a
> volunteer body are confidential. As a CU and OS we don't have any
> confidential policy (confidential data, sure)
>
> Can you elaborate more?
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:52 PM Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> gladjona...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
> >
> > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.  Any and all
> > information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> > workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> > representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> > confidential.
> >
> > 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> > public?
> > All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.)
> or
> > Meta are stored on the OTRS wiki . Why,
> > if any rules or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable
> to
> > answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
> >
> > 3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
> > If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta,
> > they can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki <
> > http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org> or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by
> > ”decree" by WMF.
> >
> > 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or
> > reworded for clarity)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
> >
> > 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> > OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators>. I believe
> OTRS
> > falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T
> >
> > 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS
> agent?
> > Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.
> >
> > 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS
> > permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
> > I do not know the answer to this question.
> >
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
> >
> > 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
> > permissions?
> > OTRS admins .
> >
> > 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> > I do not know the answer to this question.
> >
> >
> > Jonatan Svensson Glad
> > Josve05a
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Amir (he/him)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Amir Sarabadani]

Hello,
This is the first time that I heard that the rules and policies of a
volunteer body are confidential. As a CU and OS we don't have any
confidential policy (confidential data, sure)

Can you elaborate more?

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:52 PM Jonatan Svensson Glad <
gladjona...@outlook.com> wrote:

> Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
>
> 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.  Any and all
> information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private
> workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter
> representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly
> confidential.
>
> 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
> public?
> All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or
> Meta are stored on the OTRS wiki . Why,
> if any rules or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable to
> answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
>
> 3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
> If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta,
> they can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki <
> http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org> or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by
> ”decree" by WMF.
>
> 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or
> reworded for clarity)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.
>
> 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
> OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators>. I believe OTRS
> falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T
>
> 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
> Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.
>
> 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS
> permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
> I do not know the answer to this question.
>
> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.
>
> 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
> permissions?
> OTRS admins .
>
> 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
> I do not know the answer to this question.
>
>
> Jonatan Svensson Glad
> Josve05a
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
Amir (he/him)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Jonatan Svensson Glad]

Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):

1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign.  Any and all information on the 
OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to 
Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response 
Team members, and is is strictly confidential.

2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?
All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta 
are stored on the OTRS wiki . Why, if any rules 
or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable to answer this due 
to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.

3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta, they 
can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki 
 or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by 
”decree" by WMF.

4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or 
reworded for clarity)?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign.

5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” 
. I believe OTRS 
falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T

6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.

7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS 
permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
I do not know the answer to this question.

8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for 
reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting 
and apologising to their correspondents)?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents 
sign.

9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their 
permissions?
OTRS admins .

10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
I do not know the answer to this question.


Jonatan Svensson Glad
Josve05a
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

[Andy Mabbett]

OTRS is an important part of our activity, and is akey interface
between our volunteers and key partner institutions, as well as (often
notable) individuals.
By its very nature, much of what OTRS agents do cannot be as
transparent as the rest of our activities, being rightly held as
confidential.

For that reason it is essential that what can be, is as transparent as possible.

Back in February, an issue arose [1] where it became known that an
OTRS agent was rejecting images supplied by individuals at the request
of Wikidata volunteers, to illustrate Wikidata items, apparently
because that individual misunderstood and was mis-applying Commons
policy.

During the discussion of that case, on the OTRS noticeboard on
Commons, I raised ten questions [2]:

1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?

2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public?

3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?

4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
(or reworded for clarity)?

5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?

6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?

7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?

8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
(including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?

9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
permissions?

10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?

Some discussion ensued, and an email was reportedly posted to the
closed OTRS mailing list asking for input, but after several months
(indeed, nigh on half a year), THE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT YET BEEN
ANSWERED [*] (the discussion has even had to be restored from the
page's archives).

How the OTRS system operates remains opaque to most Wikimedians.

How can we get answers to these vital questions?


[Please preferably reply in the OTRS noticeboard thread if possible.
Where discussion does take place on this mailing list, please add key
points to the noticeboard thread]

[1]  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikidata

[2]  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#questions

[*] A single link was provided, to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/OTRS - which is a
set of 214 pages

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,