On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tom...@twkozlowski.net
> wrote:

> Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>  This isn't 100% correct. �The idea was to have agents who had not already
>> identified do so, since OTRS agents have access to a massive amount of
>> non-public information. �For those interested in the result, it was posting
>> a public list of OTRS agent usernames on meta. �There is no current
>> requirement for agents to ID.
>>
>
> Not really. The discussion on the OTRS wiki clearly states that the
> intention was for all OTRS volunteers to "[be] identified just like
> CheckUsers, Oversights, and Stewards" "in accordance with the non-public
> data and privacy policies." which, at that time required people to
> "satisfactorily identify" themselves to the Foundation (and they still do),
> which in effect means that they need to send a copy of their ID to the WMF.


The discussion, as I was clarifying, was about requiring agents that had
not Identified to do so.  There was no re-identifying require, which is th
point that I was making.


>
> The posting of a public list of OTRS agents usernames was result of an
> entirely different discussion, which was only started in January 2013; the
> one I was referring to took place in February 2011 (and later on).


The two are related. Both measures seek transparency, one to the WMF and
one to the community.  The fact that the community side has worked is
interesting when there is pushback to private transparency.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to