Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high
trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
by us*.

If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
members with a power of veto.


On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
> (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
> community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
> behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
> the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
> best,
> Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. "pundit"

fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Reply via email to