Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 25/04/2012 23:50, Casey Brown wrote: I'm not advocating for anything in particular -- I could care less if the ombudsman commission made an OTRS queue. It's entirely up to them. :-) I knew this was going to happen LOL. When I said "you", I wasn't aiming it at anyone in particular but makin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Katie Chan wrote: > Of course it's all very well believing in the good work and ethics of those > currently with those type of rights. However it's a different issue entirely > to assume there will never be a bad apple. If that's your attitude, then it > have to fo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: >.. > > It really amazes me how much we distrust the people who have been > doing a great work (otrs admins, ombudsmen, etc). > > And all upon contrived hypothetical scenarios.  "And how about one of > the root-access devs is secretly working

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 25/04/2012 03:52, Pedro Sanchez wrote: It really amazes me how much we distrust the people who have been doing a great work (otrs admins, ombudsmen, etc). And all upon contrived hypothetical scenarios. "And how about one of the root-access devs is secretly working for the goverment of... is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > Is there an auditable log of these actions?  i.e. one that OTRS admins > cant doctor? As Rjd said, there isn't. Nothing will ever be perfect though. For example, the mailman mailing list that they currently use can easily be accessed by a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Phillipe, We are now to day's futher. Still no responds from you on or off list, or any responds at all from the foundation. best, Huib On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:52, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > > > It really amazes me how much we distrust the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:52, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > It really amazes me how much we distrust the people who have been > doing a great work (otrs admins, ombudsmen, etc). I'm going to suggest a "benefit of the doubt response" and wonder aloud whether it's more to do with what we've come to expe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Casey Brown wrote: > > Is there an auditable log of these actions?  i.e. one that OTRS admins > cant doctor? > > -- > John Vandenberg > > ___ > Wikimedia-l maili

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

There is no such log within the OTRS software. Admin actions are logged by the OTRS admins on the OTRS wiki. Yes, these are manual edits. There has never (that I know of) been an issue with the OTRS admins accessing queues they shouldn't. While of course it is possible for them to, as others hav

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Casey Brown wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Thehelpfulone > wrote: >> You would be able to easily keep track of what tickets have >> been answered, but as far as I am aware the OTRS admins >> are technically able to view all the emails in any queues - >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 24 April 2012 01:00, Casey Brown wrote: > Queues are normally setup so that the OTRS admins can see all tickets. > This makes things easier when checking for errors, making sure there > are no backlogs, cleaning up cross-queue spam, etc. However, there are > definitely some private queues -- l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Thehelpfulone wrote: > You would be able to easily keep track of what tickets have > been answered, but as far as I am aware the OTRS admins > are technically able to view all the emails in any queues - > so that would be another 12ish people plus devs that would >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Just for the record: the reason I asked for the number of emails is not because of an exact number: but for people to understand how much of a workload it is (and appreciate it!). For that number I only care about the order of magnitude in the end - the important numbers are indeed the number of ca

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 23 April 2012 18:56, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 23 April 2012 17:50, Risker wrote: >>> I am very surprised that it would require going through 600 emails to >>> find out how many cases the OC has dealt with over the past year. If >>> they don't have that information somewhere, then they can't h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 23 April 2012 17:50, Risker wrote: >> I am very surprised that it would require going through 600 emails to >> find out how many cases the OC has dealt with over the past year. If >> they don't have that information somewhere, then they can't have been >> doing a good job. There is no way they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Risker, 23/04/2012 18:50: I don't think your correlation is correct. Simply because they have not maintained a list of case dispositions (not required or expected to this point, and more particularly very difficult to do when there's no confidential place for them to retain it) does not mean tha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard : > > Top posting. > > > > This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for > > *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is > > in any kind of way relevant to the work this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 23 April 2012 12:41, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard : > > Top posting. > > > > This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for > > *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is > > in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard : > Top posting. > > This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for > *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is > in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for > one. Seriously, if they solve a case w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Please have a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission#Processing.2FReporting I hope this is sort of satisfying for now? I will not do that for the 2011 term. Already this one cost me more than two hours and it is only from 1st of February to now. :) If you do the maths you end

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Top posting. This is getting a bit ridiculous. Frankly, while I see the need for *some* statistics, I don't see how the number of emails exchanged is in any kind of way relevant to the work this ombudsmen commission, for one. Seriously, if they solve a case with 2 emails or 200, I couldn't care le

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Mike Christie : > This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would > like a clarification.  What's the decision-making process within the > WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a > WMF process)?  I understand how processes are implement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Ok, for the number fans, I did a filter search on my email archive and I found 660 emails archived that were sent to the OC email address since we were appointed (I don't think I deleted any, so this should probably be it). This includes emails sent from within the committee as well as those sent t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Craig Franklin wrote: > I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid > and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a condescending and > passive-aggressive response. > > I'm sure you're all very busy but that's no excuse for not conti

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Thehelpfulone : > Touché. I believe that if the process is going to be put on Meta we do need > actual numbers as opposed to your guesstimations. Hopefully this shouldn't be > too difficult to sort out, if you do some searches on Gmail for all the > emails that you have received in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

It was not meant passive-aggressive. ;) I know that his suggestion is a good one and I wanted to push him to just do it on Meta. Sorry if you misunderstood that. ^^ Th. > I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid > and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a co

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 23 Apr 2012, at 13:02, Thomas Goldammer wrote: >> >> You can clearly document the process that you follow. You can publish >> metrics like those Lodewijk suggested (and actual numbers, not just >> guesses). It would be nice to have a page on meta that says how many >> cases are currently at e

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:02:29 +0200 > From: Thomas Goldammer > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > You can clearly document the proc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012/4/23 Thomas Dalton : > Transparency and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, the > actual content of complaints is usually going to be confidential, but > that doesn't preclude the process being transparent. That's why I answered to Lodewijk's questions. I guess the process is more

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On 23 April 2012 11:06, Thomas Goldammer wrote: > Sorry if someone gets the impression of a black box, but as we are > investigating privacy violations, we have to be very careful which > information to share and we prefer to share as little as possible. Transparency and privacy are not mutually

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Huib Laurens wrote: > On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter > has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it? > > Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a > responds about the complaint self,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette, 23/04/2012 12:20: That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l. For a formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc. What's a "formal complaint" then? I don't see anywhere instruction about how to file one and all ways I can think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it? Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a responds about the complaint self, we only got the responds "We don't think any office action is n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Exactly, I was referring to formal complaints which probably have the intention to reaching out to the board. In any case, I think it would be very helpful if the information Thomas has provided could be summarized in a short report on meta so that it is also a template for the future. Perhaps som

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l. For a formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org On Mon,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint. Let's say 1. Ebe123 On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer > wrote: > >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the >>> committee? >> >> I don't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer wrote: > > * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the > > committee? > > I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy > about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about > the r

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

> * How many cases were brought to your attention? around 30, give or take > * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant > investigation beyond direct dismissal? around 10, I'd say > * How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)? none that I woul

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Hi Thomas, of course the privacy of those involved needs to be guarantueed. But questions I had in mind were: * How many cases were brought to your attention? * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant investigation beyond direct dismissal? * How many cases did you take on *pr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Hi all, Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with and therefore took a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > > If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the > commission whether they reached them. I think this is an excellent idea. Although I'd encourage you to position it as "this is what the community wo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running > a new process, Philippe? > _ > *Béria Lima* > > Hi Beria - It's a good question, and a fair one. The truth is, there were a couple of factors: first, did I beli

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Lodewijk, 22/04/2012 23:58: As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members privately). If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the commission whether they reached them.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Hi Anne, it was however common procedure to ask publicly for applications before making a decision on who are the best candidates. Maybe they are the best there are - maybe not, we'll never know. As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual report of her activities i

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just point out that there has never been a vote for this position. Risker/Anne On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule wrote: > Still, a vote for new members should of been done. > > Ebe123 > > > On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard S

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Still, a vote for new members should of been done. Ebe123 On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" wrote: > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email... > > Richard > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Yeah, they are doing a very good job... One year a go with all the "abigor" drama everybody told go to the umbutsman commision, and they never responded... I'm happy to see that we keep the failing commite with the same people yet another year. Best, Huib ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email... Richard On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" wrote: > Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running > a new process, Philippe? > _ > *Béria

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running a new process, Philippe? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.