On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Michelle Paulson
mpaul...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi All,
I wanted to let you know that I have posted a
responsehttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Rethinking_the_access_policy:_Response_to_recent_feedbackto
the recent
Hi George -
I can tell you that I was in the room as this was being discussed
today. I'm fairly sure that Michelle is going to be following up on
this question shortly. It wasn't being ignored - we are just in that
territory where lawyers like to be certain that when they answer
clarifying
Ok. As long as it wasn't missed, in all the other topics.
Thanks, I will be patient.
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi George -
I can tell you that I was in the room as this was being discussed
today. I'm fairly sure that Michelle is
As for I, I have totally given up with the idea of preservation of
confidential data when the US are somehow involved (if the NSA is
already involved in recording German president phone conversations or
French diplomatic department communications, who are we to hope that our
every steps can be
On 10/26/2013 10:00 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
2) that WMF disclose private information about us (OTRS member for
example) volunteers to other volunteers, who may not even be identified
in the least (as in arbitration committee members)
The members of the English Wikipedia Arbcom, at
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
As for I, I have totally given up with the idea of preservation of
confidential data when the US are somehow involved (if the NSA is already
involved in recording German president phone conversations or French
On 10/26/13 5:37 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
As for I, I have totally given up with the idea of preservation of
confidential data when the US are somehow involved (if the NSA is already
involved in recording German president
Again I ask:
Can the WMF either publicly or privately provide enough detailed assurance
as to the digital medium storage plan for these IDs?
This is or should be a no-go for requiring IDs (or at least allowing them
to be transferred that way).
I would be happy to contribute a free independent
MZMcBride, 24/10/2013 05:47:
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
handling; but that
...
Apparently, legals say that the current policy is too flexible for the board
to have really meant approving it, so of course the board will like to
change his mind and make it much stricter, while if one wanted to keep it as
flexible as it is now one would need the board to change his
On 10/24/2013 09:37 AM, Risker wrote:
Wow, Fae. Justwow.
I think Fae was being highly ironic there.
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/24/2013 09:37 AM, Risker wrote:
Wow, Fae. Justwow.
I think Fae was being highly ironic there.
If so, I think we just ran into Poe's law.[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law (of course)
On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term. :-)
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current
Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
since nothing is ever done with the identification data. Can anyone think
of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
proposed
On 24 October 2013 00:07, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
(I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
the same); but I can think of
As far as The physical handling is relatively easy to ensure is proper,
well... Considering that some of our less sane problematic users have, if
I'm remembering correctly, shown up at the WMF office itself and would have
loved to get their hands on the real-life documents of our
Fluff-
When crazies go crazy
about Wikipedia, they go *very *crazy, and breaking a padlock in an office
isn't that outlandish for some of them.
It will not happen without staff being fully aware, and an intruder knowing
which cabinet to break into without significant effort is extremely
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
handling; but that tightening does very much need to take
Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
The discussion is taking place at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_info_policy
and I invite every interested person (with a special invitation to
people holding advanced user rights on any Wikimedia wiki) to take an
active part in it.
This
Thanks for the notice about this discussion. I knew it was to be a part of
the new privacy policy, but I wasn't aware of the talk page.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
We already went through a similar discussion two and a half years ago,
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
This isn't 100% correct. �The idea was to have agents who had not already
identified do so, since OTRS agents have access to a massive amount of
non-public information. �For those
Keegan Peterzell wrote:
The discussion, as I was clarifying, was about requiring agents that had
not Identified to do so. There was no re-identifying require, which is
th point that I was making.
Oh yes, that's right. Thanks for the clarification, Keegan; I'm sorry
about the confusion.
Keegan Peterzell, 15/10/2013 10:24:
The two are related. Both measures seek transparency, one to the WMF and
one to the community. The fact that the community side has worked is
interesting when there is pushback to private transparency.
This is an interesting point, thanks for making it. I
This is directed at the Wikimedia legal team, whom I have cc'd: Even
though the pace of contributions to the discussion page of the policy
has picked up in the last couple of days, no one from the legal team
has commented in about a month. I think it would help the discussion
if the legal team
Hi Nathan,
My apologies for the delay. We will begin responding asap.
-Michelle
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
This is directed at the Wikimedia legal team, whom I have cc'd: Even
though the pace of contributions to the discussion page of the policy
has
Hi,
I would like to bring your attention to yet another discussion that's
currently taking place, namely the one about the new privacy policy, and
the related access to non-public information policy.
The privacy policy consultation is obviously important to all of us. but
I'm personally more
Thanks for the pointer, Tomasz. I made a couple of points I'll reiterate here:
1) Under Secure and Confidential Storage this is a sentence
describing how the WMF will share / release the information submitted
by volunteers. Part A allows the WMF to disclose the information to
third parties with a
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Just checking: considering that this is a rather limited set of users, I
assume they've all been notified by the WMF via email or talk page about
the discussion?
You must be new here.
Tomasz
___
Wikimedia-l
On 14 October 2013 16:39, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Just checking: considering that this is a rather limited set of users, I
assume they've all been notified by the WMF via email or talk page about
the discussion?
You must be new here.
29 matches
Mail list logo
