Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

 I always supported a more effective centralized policy for NC. I don't think 
that will discourage organizations from adopting more free license per se, the 
same way that adopting certain NC material on local Wikis did not so far. it's 
not an absolute consequence, it's how you do it.

At least, we should start centralizing that non-free material locally uploaded 
since it's already there. I would like logos of Universities and coat of arms 
of public administration and doubtful old images that according to some 
platforms are free but for Commons are not (gray areas), to be on a NC part of 
Commons, or a dedicated platform (i always link 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki_(2). it's just more rational. 

If we did so, we could start from there and see where it goes. We will have a 
list of established exceptions (that we accept already, just locally), we can 
add few more ones. it's not a definitive solution, it's a process that we 
should face together.

I think specifically we should accept NC if it's better than what it is 
currently available from the uploader. For example if an artist give us a 
reproduction of its artwork in NC for Wikipedia, is it still better than 
nothing? Are we really sure he would have done something in any case if we did 
not provide such options? We probbaly all suspect it's the max we can can get 
to the world in that scenario. This approach for example will not apply to the 
case of WHO, in their case is not a clear improvement, so no upload. 

If you put a limited group of users in charge of that process, or some funnel 
step in the procedure, it will never be massive, but it might be targeted and 
useful, IMHO.
Alex



Il domenica 12 luglio 2020, 02:33:04 CEST, James Heilman  
ha scritto:  
 
 Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use of the NC license is that
it increases incentives for other organizations to actually adopt open
licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more
organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi James :)
>
> (This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
> on this list.)
>
> > We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
> > listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy
> videos)
> > less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use.
>
> I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> license.
>
> > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
>
> I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> Wikimedia projects?
>
> If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> short-sighted.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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 messag

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[James Heilman]

Yes one of the stronger reasons to reject all use of the NC license is that
it increases incentives for other organizations to actually adopt open
licenses. I simply wish that such a position would convince more
organizations. WHO has repeatedly told me that we, as a non-profit, are
already free to use their work and if we chose not to, that is on us.

James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 6:19 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Hi James :)
>
> (This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
> on this list.)
>
> > We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
> > listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy
> videos)
> > less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use.
>
> I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
> or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
> initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
> perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
> and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
> license.
>
> > This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.
>
> I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
> want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
> can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
> altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
> Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
> licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
> poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
> nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
> is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
> some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
> Wikimedia projects?
>
> If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
> free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
> strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
> short-sighted.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Erik Moeller]

Hi James :)

(This is my last reply for today, given the recommended posting limit
on this list.)

> We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
> listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy videos)
> less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use.

I completely agree. I'm wondering if efforts have been made at the WMF
or chapter level to partner with these organizations on new
initiatives, where a more permissive license could be used? This could
perhaps help to introduce CC-BY-SA/CC-BY to orgs like Khan Academy,
and help lay the groundwork for potentially changing their default
license.

> This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism.

I disagree with your framing here. There are many pragmatic reasons to
want to build a knowledge commons with uniform expectations for how it
can be built upon and re-used. It's also pragmatic to be careful about
altering the incentive structure for contributors. Right now,
Wikimedia Commons hosts millions of contributions under permissive
licenses. How many of those folks would have chosen an "exceedingly
poor" (your words) option like NC, if that was available? And if a
nonfree carve-out is limited to organizations like Khan Academy, how
is such a carve-out fair and equitable to contributors who have, in
some cases, given up potential commercial revenue to contribute to
Wikimedia projects?

If a license is "exceedingly poor" and harmful to the goals of the
free culture movement, incorporating more information under such terms
strikes me as neither idealistic nor pragmatic -- it would just be
short-sighted.

Warmly,
Erik

___
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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[James Heilman]

We all agree that NC licenses are exceedingly poor due to the reasons
listed, yet we leave a lot of useful content (such as Khan academy videos)
less accessible to our readers because we disallow any such use. Fair use
has the same issues, in that fair use is decided on a cases by case basis.
And I would argue that allowing fair use on EN WP brings a lot less benefit
to our users than would allowing NC videos or images.

This is a balance between pragmatism and idealism. We IMO should not let
striving for perfection prevent us from taking steps towards becoming more
useful. Do the majority of our users care if the videos we contain are only
fully openly licensed, would they be upset to see CC BY SA NC videos? I
doubt it, and for the small minority that do we just need to clearly mark
things.

I and others have tried for over 10 years to convince both Khan and the
World Health Organization to adopt open licenses. They have decided to
stick to using NC.
James

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:52 PM Kat Walsh  wrote:

> This was brought up during the 4.0 drafting process, but it was
> ultimately rejected:
>
>
> https://creativecommons.org/2012/08/29/ongoing-discussions-noncommercial-and-noderivatives/
>
> We also proposed renaming NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved" to make
> it clearer what NC does, but that too had insufficient support.
>
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html
>
> I'm not sure what the current attitudes are at CC but I think it's no
> more likely than before.
>
> -Kat
>
> > Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC
> licenses?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > > On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
> > > ("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
> > > which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
> > > against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
> > > occasionally resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> > >
> > >
> https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> > >
> > > It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> > > almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> > > complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> > > https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> > >
> > > Warmly,
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Kat Walsh]

This was brought up during the 4.0 drafting process, but it was
ultimately rejected:

https://creativecommons.org/2012/08/29/ongoing-discussions-noncommercial-and-noderivatives/

We also proposed renaming NC to "Commercial Rights Reserved" to make
it clearer what NC does, but that too had insufficient support.

https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2012-December/008087.html

I'm not sure what the current attitudes are at CC but I think it's no
more likely than before.

-Kat

> Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
> > ("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
> > which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
> > against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
> > occasionally resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> >
> > https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> >
> > It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> > almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> > complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> > https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> >
> > Warmly,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > ___
> > 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
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Erik Moeller]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Michael Peel  wrote:

> I remember reading Erik’s blog post a decade or so ago, which convinced me 
> that -NC was useless due to its ambiguity - where exactly is the line drawn 
> between what is commercial and what is not? I can’t find it now

https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC is the canonical location of
that essay. I and others have updated it a bit since it was first
written, but it could definitely use some love :)

> Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?

I doubt it given how pervasive it is. Back when those discussion were
hot, we were able to convince CC to add the "Approved for Free
Cultural Works" stamp you see on license pages like this one, to set
them apart more clearly:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

It would be nice to see CC take a more active stance in at least
discouraging the use of NC in circumstances where it's not appropriate
(it's possible I've missed some work by CC to that effect).

Warmly,
Erik

___
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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Michael Peel]

I remember reading Erik’s blog post a decade or so ago, which convinced me that 
-NC was useless due to its ambiguity - where exactly is the line drawn between 
what is commercial and what is not? I can’t find it now, but perhaps 
http://www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006-06-02-en-moeller.pdf
 is similar. Pete’s new essay seems to agree with that.

Is there any way we could convince CC to deprecate the useless -NC licenses?

Thanks,
Mike

> On 11 Jul 2020, at 22:59, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
> ("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
> which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
> against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
> occasionally resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):
> 
> https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent
> 
> It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
> almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
> complements the longer (dated!) essay at
> https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.
> 
> Warmly,
> 
> Erik
> 
> ___
> 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] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

[Erik Moeller]

Hi folks,

Pete Forsyth wrote a new essay on the ambiguities of the NonCommercial
("non-commercial use only") provision in Creative Commons licenses,
which I wanted to share in case it's helpful for folks making the case
against using NC to cultural institutions or others (or in the
occasionally resurgent debate to permit NC within Wikimedia):

https://freedomdefined.org/The_non-commercial_provision_obfuscates_intent

It argues that NC is so ambiguous in its defining restriction that it
almost defeats the point of attaching a CC license at all. I feel this
complements the longer (dated!) essay at
https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC nicely.

Warmly,

Erik

___
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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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, 


-- 
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, 

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,
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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]

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, 



___
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] Fwd: Re: [Wikitech-l] CI and Code Review

[Aron Manning]

*Cross-posting to wikitech-l as it's a topic related to development.*

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:01, Maarten Dammers  wrote:

> Of interest to the wider community. I really hope this is not part of a
> larger pattern of the WMF ignoring community.
>
> Maarten


I've had a great experience in the "Discussion Tools" (WMF's talk pages
reply tool) project. Feedback is properly documented, considered and worked
on. I recall having quite some input on the UI design and I'm happy that
resulted in a clean, focused UI.

That is an example to follow, but there's a lot to improve in other areas.
Although I favor GitLab, I was surprised that this introduction didn't have
a community round other than the developer feedback survey. I assume
the non-public results of the surcey justify this move and I'm happy
with it, so no complaints, but it came as a surprise to me that this is
happening as such discussions were promptly shut down on phabricator: I've
given this suggestion once in a related topic and rude comments told me
this is off-topic and basically to keep it to myself. The discussion ended
abruptly and the ticket was closed within a day.

There was another discussion  closed
and declined after 4 comments from 3 participants in 12 minutes. This
discussion was later referred to as the official decision to avoid GitLab
:-)
And prior to the current announcement, an attempt was made to rename this
discussion to "RFC: ..."
I have a hard time to understand these actions and correlate it to any
consensus process and transparent communication.


The recent update to the history diff font
 also could have been
communicated better. Informing editors about a simple solution (to change
your editor font setting or add some CSS to common.css/global.css) would
have avoided disruption and community backlash. Instead the latter solution
was only shared reactively after complaints and the simple solution was not
suggested.

I'd hope the developer team gives more attention to communication and
transparency. I think this has improved in the last year, primarily in the
preparation of Desktop Improvements and Talk pages project, but it's still
a long path to improve engagement generally with the community and in
particular development matters.


Aron (Demian)
___
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

[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,