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 while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
within the committee, also for future committee searches.

However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
people to the right place where they could get help for their
individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
cases to this body.

Best regards,

2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette <phili...@wikimedia.org>:
> <phili...@wikimedia.org>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> <nemow...@gmail.com>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 would like to see going forward" - it's
> not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

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

Reply via email to