Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-26 Thread Katie Chan

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 making a general statement. Apology for 
any confusion.


KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-25 Thread Huib Laurens
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 bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 03:52, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com 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 expect.

 Most of us start as editors and we become aware that our every
 contribution is logged and publicly available for scrutiny. That is of
 tremendous use to us as editors.

 So maybe it's just that we all started in that environment and see the
 value of that and then we tend to carry over those thoughts into every
 aspect of what happens on the wikis.

 It may not be achievable, desirable or necessary to have access to
 that level of monitoring/review for everything else (I know nothing of
 OTRS and/or ombudsmen), I'm just suggesting why these questions may
 arise: a cultural thing, if you like.

 Bodnotbod

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-25 Thread Casey Brown
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com 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 anyone with the
root mailman password. The list of people with that password is very
small -- and is mostly restricted to sysadmins and high-level staffers
-- but there are still people who can hypothetically access it without
anyone knowing. It's more an issue of minimizing risk than eliminating
it.

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-25 Thread John Vandenberg
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com 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
 anyone working on a solution for this?

Good governance is not built on blind trust.

It is important to be able to periodically check that there hasnt been abuse.

The OTRS admins are doing great work, and enwp oversight and arbcom
have moved under OTRS despite the lack of an audit trail, but I will
continue to ask for one because I believe it is important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-24 Thread Thehelpfulone
On 24 April 2012 01:00, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org 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 -- like the oversight and Wikimedia
 registration/scholarship queues -- that OTRS admins cannot see unless
 they give themselves access to it, which they wouldn't do unless they
 needed to for some reason.

 --
 Casey Brown
 Cbrown1023


Oh of course, what I intended in my previous email was to highlight the
fact that OTRS admins *technically *have the ability to view private emails
that may even be discussing actions that they themselves have done in their
capacities as oversighters or checkusers. I completely trust the integrity
of the OTRS admins (yes I even trust you ;-) ) to not do anything they
shouldn't do, but I see the importance in giving advance warning about who
could *potentially *view emails if an OTRS queue for the
Ombudsman commission was created.
-- 
Thehelpfulone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
English Wikipedia Administrator
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-24 Thread John Vandenberg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
 On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Thehelpfulone
 thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com 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
 be able to view the tickets. I'm not saying that they would,
 but bearing in mind a fair number of the OTRS admins are
 checkusers/oversighters themselves, I think there will be
 some issues with using OTRS.

 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 -- like the oversight and Wikimedia
 registration/scholarship queues -- that OTRS admins cannot see unless
 they give themselves access to it, which they wouldn't do unless they
 needed to for some reason.

Is there an auditable log of these actions?  i.e. one that OTRS admins
cant doctor?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-24 Thread Rjd0060
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 have explained, I'm not sure it is a
realistic concern that needs a solution.  It would be ideal if the OTRS
software logged all actions ... I wonder if this is changed at all in the
new version, which hopefully will be set up for Wikimedia soon (
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22622).

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org
 wrote:
  On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Thehelpfulone
  thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com 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
  be able to view the tickets. I'm not saying that they would,
  but bearing in mind a fair number of the OTRS admins are
  checkusers/oversighters themselves, I think there will be
  some issues with using OTRS.
 
  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 -- like the oversight and Wikimedia
  registration/scholarship queues -- that OTRS admins cannot see unless
  they give themselves access to it, which they wouldn't do unless they
  needed to for some reason.

 Is there an auditable log of these actions?  i.e. one that OTRS admins
 cant doctor?

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Ryan
User:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-24 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:

 Is there an auditable log of these actions?  i.e. one that OTRS admins
 cant doctor?

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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
anyone working on a solution for this?


Pedro Sánchez
http://drini.mx
@combinatorica

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
 * 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 would remember

 * In how many cases in total did the committee take action (or advise the
 WMF to take action)?

we requested user rights changes for the committee or asked for
further information we were not able to obtain ourselves several times
(thanks to Philippe for helping us all the time with this!), but we
never asked/recommended the Board to remove CU/steward rights from
anyone.

 * How many emails did you exchange over the past year on your mailing list?

I'd say at least 500. Could also be 1000 or more, I really can't tell
you any exact numbers and I won't count it.

 * Were you able to send a confirmation with the outcome of the case to
 every complainor?

Except for the cases still under investigation, I guess so. We now
usually also send a confirmation when we receive a request (we didn't
do that in the beginning).

 * Was the person complained about informed every time of the fact they were
 under investigation?

If someone did not make any mistake we do not tell them that someone
complained about them. We contacted them only if we had questions to
them or if we deemed it necessary to explain something to them.

 * Is the process accurately described on meta?

Which process do you mean?

 * Do you have steps in place to ensure every single request gets the follow
 up it needs, if not will that be improved?

We are working on developing a better way of keeping track of the
requests at the moment. However, the technical possibilities are
limited, for security and privacy reasons.

 * 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 result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.


 This information could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs. I
 suspect that the Board already receives such summary (the committee reports
 directly to the board according to the meta
 pagehttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission)
 so an extract from that would probably be easiest. Even if that is not the
 case I have the feeling it should be doable to create these numbers
 afterwards for 2011. That is not only a big win for transparancy, but also
 for future candidate members - they would know what they are getting into.
 Finally, it allows people to evaluate if they trust the committee enough to
 send their complaints to. I know several people who in the past (before the
 current committee probably) have sent complaints but felt it was a black
 box and have no idea what happened to them. That can be quite damaging for
 the image and should be avoided.

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. The
committee works very simple, we receive a complaint, which we confirm
to the complainor, then we discuss if a privacy violation can even be
involved. If not, we decline the request and - if possible - we try to
tell the complainor where they can get help for their problem. If
indeed a privacy violation is possible we investigate on this and then
we have a result whether or not there was a breach of the policy and
we give that result to the complainor, explaining them why we think
there was (or not) a breach of the policy. If we do find a breach of
privacy we would have to discuss what we do about it. But as I said,
we never recommended to the Board to remove any rights from a CU or
steward. I hope that such a recommendation will never be necessary,
but of course we are ready for this, *if* it becomes necessary. :)
This whole investigation process can take a while and can involve
contacting the person about whom the complaint was, if we need to ask
them for clarification on the issue, or if we need to tell them how to
avoid such issues in the future. It can also involve us doing checks
on users ourselves to double-check CU results (of course, in such
cases we inform the local CUs why they see us in the log).

However, when we will finally have set up our technical aids to keep
better track of the cases, we will be able to improve on all this.

Th.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Philippe Beaudette
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, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule betie...@bellaliant.netwrote:

 Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint.  Let's say 1.

 Ebe123


 On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
  tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
 
  * 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 result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
 
 
 
  To my knowledge, none.
 
  pb
 
  ___
  Philippe Beaudette
  Director, Community Advocacy
  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
  415-839-6885, x 6643
 
  phili...@wikimedia.org
 
  phili...@wikimedia.org
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com 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, we only got the responds We don't think
 any office action is needed.

 Best,

 Huib


Bearing in mind that it's nearly 4AM, but I'm not aware of that letter.  If
such a letter was sent, of course, we'll increment that to 1 from zero. :)

pb
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
2012/4/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
 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 transparent now.


 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 each point in the process and is kept
 up-to-date.

You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
you to do. Thanks.


 The ombudsmen commission has always felt to me to be the most
 cabalistic of all the committees and groups we have. A lot of people
 don't know it even exists or what it really does. All I tend to hear
 about it is when people are complaining that their emails have gone
 into the black box, never to be seen again.

Well, we are not going to advertise our services to everyone in
person. If the people do not know that we exist, that's not our fault
but the fault of the community. What we are doing is already described
on the Meta page. If someone has sent a complaint and never gets any
answer, then this is of course our fault, and it shouldn't happen. A
little reminder usually does the trick, though. As you know, we are
all not 24/7 OC workers doing nothing else in our lives. It can always
happen that some email gets stuck in spam filters or just gets
overlooked especially on days when you receive a hundred or more
wiki-related emails, which is about every day in the year. I think
what could really help is if we could use the OTRS ticket system for
our work (that's an idea that just now came into my mind)... But I
don't know how secure that is and if it is even possible to set it up
so closed that only the OC members can access those tickets. (Any
suggestions from Philippe about that?)


 Just because it deals with confidential information doesn't mean that
 it shouldn't be held to the same standards of transparency as every
 other part of our movement.

Well, traditionally the transparency of the OC was very low, that's
true. We just took over these traditions from our predecessors, but
that doesn't mean that we can't break with these traditions and set up
some new standards. It just needs to be done, which means some work.
However, don't ever expect that we will publish anything case-related,
including people or wiki projects involved.

Th.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Craig Franklin

 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:02:29 +0200
 From: Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com
 To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission
 Message-ID:
CAL0e-KVCetcaaKNQuiSwX5ckBnxqw=9_6vhkdj988ypz3wd...@mail.gmail.com
 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

  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 each point in the process and is kept
  up-to-date.

 You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
 I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
 you to do. Thanks.


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 continually
striving for a higher standard of transparency and accountability (within
the obvious restrictions that your work imposes).

Regards,
Craig Franklin
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thehelpfulone
On 23 Apr 2012, at 13:02, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com 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 each point in the process and is kept
 up-to-date.
 
 You just volunteered to set up such a page on Meta (for 2012, I mean).
 I already described the process we use, so this should be possible for
 you to do. Thanks.

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 last year from the mailing list you should be 
able to get a better number of the volume of emails that you got overall in the 
year.

 
 
 The ombudsmen commission has always felt to me to be the most
 cabalistic of all the committees and groups we have. A lot of people
 don't know it even exists or what it really does. All I tend to hear
 about it is when people are complaining that their emails have gone
 into the black box, never to be seen again.
 
 Well, we are not going to advertise our services to everyone in
 person. If the people do not know that we exist, that's not our fault
 but the fault of the community. What we are doing is already described
 on the Meta page. If someone has sent a complaint and never gets any
 answer, then this is of course our fault, and it shouldn't happen. A
 little reminder usually does the trick, though. As you know, we are
 all not 24/7 OC workers doing nothing else in our lives. It can always
 happen that some email gets stuck in spam filters or just gets
 overlooked especially on days when you receive a hundred or more
 wiki-related emails, which is about every day in the year. I think
 what could really help is if we could use the OTRS ticket system for
 our work (that's an idea that just now came into my mind)... But I
 don't know how secure that is and if it is even possible to set it up
 so closed that only the OC members can access those tickets. (Any
 suggestions from Philippe about that?)

I don't think that OTRS is the necessarily the best option - unless you use it 
in collaboration with the mailing list, i.e someone sends a complaint to OTRS, 
the commission discusses on the mailing list and then send out a response to 
the user. 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 be able to view the tickets. I'm not saying that they would, but 
bearing in mind a fair number of the OTRS admins are checkusers/oversighters 
themselves, I think there will be some issues with using OTRS.

 

Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
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 condescending and
 passive-aggressive response.

 I'm sure you're all very busy but that's no excuse for not continually
 striving for a higher standard of transparency and accountability (within
 the obvious restrictions that your work imposes).

 Regards,
 Craig Franklin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
2012/4/23 Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com:
 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 last year from the mailing list you 
 should be able to get a better number of the volume of emails that you got 
 overall in the year.

Nope. Thomas should just create the page and format it so we can
easily fill in the numbers for 2012. (If he doesn't want, anyone else
can do that as well, of course. ^^) Let's just begin with this sort of
statistics now, for 2012, and let's not do 2011. It's just too much
work to dig everything out again just for counting some numbers.
Please bear in mind that it's just statistics anyway. It really
doesn't matter if it were 28 or 32 requests (or any other number
around that) in 2011.



 I don't think that OTRS is the necessarily the best option - unless you use 
 it in collaboration with the mailing list, i.e someone sends a complaint to 
 OTRS, the commission discusses on the mailing list and then send out a 
 response to the user. 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 be able to view the tickets. I'm not saying that 
 they would, but bearing in mind a fair number of the OTRS admins are 
 checkusers/oversighters themselves, I think there will be some issues with 
 using OTRS.

Hm ok, if that's true, OTRS is clearly not an option. ^^

Th.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Mike Christie
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net 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 continually
 striving for a higher standard of transparency and accountability (within
 the obvious restrictions that your work imposes).

 Regards,
 Craig Franklin

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 implemented (or not),
and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet
understand the relationship between community requests (or requests
from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks.  What
are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as
this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's
appropriate?  Is it part of their job description to communicate via
lists such as this, and justify their decisions?

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular request -- I spent
years as a corporate ombudsman and so I understand the concerns about
privacy and confidentiality, but the request seems reasonable.
However, if Thomas feels that it's not as important as other tasks
that he has been given to do, what's the expectation -- that he should
post an explanation, but is not obliged to do the task?

I suppose this is a special case of a general question: presumably WMF
employees have two masters -- the decisions of the board, which should
trickle down into directives to each group and employee, and
prevailing consensus in the communities, which may occasionally
conflict with those directives, or which may lead to vocal minority
dissent.  I have seen a couple of examples of this in practice but I
don't have a clear idea of how those conflicts ought to be resolved.

Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
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 to us from outside. My estimate was around 500,
so it's not so bad, actually. :) No, you do *not* want me to read all
that stuff again. Let's just keep it at roughly 30 cases, please.

Th.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
2012/4/23 Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com:
 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 implemented (or not),
 and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet
 understand the relationship between community requests (or requests
 from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks.  What
 are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as
 this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's
 appropriate?  Is it part of their job description to communicate via
 lists such as this, and justify their decisions?

Mike, the ombudsman commission does not consist of WMF employees. We
are just volunteers. We don't get paid for what we are doing. ;) If I
got paid for it, I would happily search all my emails and create all
sorts of statistics the community wants to have, but I didn't
volunteer for being a statistican or doing anything related to that,
so I just won't do it. :) Explaining how we process requests is
something else, and I did already explain that process.

Th.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Thomas Goldammer
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 up at ~20
cases for the 2011 term (5 cases in 3 months = 20 in a year). I think
there were some more than that but not many more. Also included on
that page is the outline of our processing that I gave earlier.

Th.

2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
 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 less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600
 emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first
 place, if I am not mistaken.

 Could the interested people, as was asked, draw up a few report
 guidelines on meta as to what they would like to see, and could the
 commission can take just a bit of its time to see what's
 feasible/reasonable and what is not (as per Mike's proposal), and
 agree to issue a report at given intervals so that the black box is
 maybe not so black?

 It seems that something along the lines of X cases, Y accepted, Z
 rejected (reason for them being rejected if possible), solved
 succesfully/not solved and time to solve a case (date it came in, date
 it was solved) would probably answer most of the concerns expressed
 here. If you know you have to do it in advance, then the task should
 be bearable. Let's look forward, and not dwell on what we didn't think
 about before.

 Cheers,

 Delphine



 On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com 
 wrote:
 2012/4/23 Mike Christie coldchr...@gmail.com:
 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 implemented (or not),
 and how tasks are done (or not) on en.wikipedia, but I don't yet
 understand the relationship between community requests (or requests
 from individuals in the community) and WMF processes and tasks.  What
 are the expectations for WMF employees' response to a request such as
 this -- presumably they can assess it and say no if they feel that's
 appropriate?  Is it part of their job description to communicate via
 lists such as this, and justify their decisions?

 Mike, the ombudsman commission does not consist of WMF employees. We
 are just volunteers. We don't get paid for what we are doing. ;) If I
 got paid for it, I would happily search all my emails and create all
 sorts of statistics the community wants to have, but I didn't
 volunteer for being a statistican or doing anything related to that,
 so I just won't do it. :) Explaining how we process requests is
 something else, and I did already explain that process.

 Th.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --
 @notafish

 NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get 
 lost.
 Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
 Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-23 Thread Risker
On 23 April 2012 12:41, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/4/23 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
  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 less. Second, I understand Thomas' reluctance to skim through 600
  emails to give a report that was not part of his mandate in the first
  place, if I am not mistaken.

 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 can do their job properly
 without knowing what cases they've received...



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 that they have
failed to do the job properly.

I note the plan to create accesses to CRMs for community uses in Q3 of
the draft Engineering annual plan.  I'd encourage the Ombudsman Committee
to ask that they be put at the front of the line for access to this
software.

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-22 Thread Etienne Beaule
Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

Ebe123


On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
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 berial...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 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. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
 
 
 On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
 A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
 undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
 with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
 the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
 efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
 who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
 took
 it on.
 
 Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
 the
 ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
 the
 exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
 who
 has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
 member
 of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
 
 It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
 extremely
 remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
 commission,
 and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
 
 Best wishes,
 pb
 ___
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
 415-839-6885, x 6643
 
 phili...@wikimedia.org
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-22 Thread Risker
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 betie...@bellaliant.net wrote:

 Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

 Ebe123


 On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
 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 berial...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  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. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
 
 
  On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
  undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
  with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
 tool,
  the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
  efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
 Board,
  who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
  took
  it on.
 
  Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
  the
  ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
  the
  exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
  who
  has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
  member
  of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
 
  It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
  extremely
  remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
  commission,
  and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
 
  Best wishes,
  pb
  ___
  Philippe Beaudette
  Director, Community Advocacy
  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 
  415-839-6885, x 6643
 
  phili...@wikimedia.org
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-22 Thread Lodewijk
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 in summary (as I suggested a few members
privately).

Best,

Lodewijk

El 22 de abril de 2012 21:46, Risker risker...@gmail.com escribió:

 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 betie...@bellaliant.net wrote:

  Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
 
  Ebe123
 
 
  On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk
 
  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 berial...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   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. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
  
  
   On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
  
   A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
   undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.
  Charged
   with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
  tool,
   the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism
 and
   efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
  Board,
   who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
   took
   it on.
  
   Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the
 ombudsmen
   the
   ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All,
 with
   the
   exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is
 Pundit,
   who
   has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
   member
   of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
  
   It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
   extremely
   remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
   commission,
   and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
  
   Best wishes,
   pb
   ___
   Philippe Beaudette
   Director, Community Advocacy
   Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
  
   415-839-6885, x 6643
  
   phili...@wikimedia.org
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l