I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and
friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at
the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF
wikis that are interconnected but run independently.

When we discuss adding another volunteer committee or adding more
responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of
professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper
training and their staff support. If these committees are to function
properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources.

I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group (
beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the
Legal and  Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally
banning and locking accounts.

Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of  community
indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than
these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional
whose work is being evaluated.

Sydney Poore



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>:
> > It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
> > aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
> > responsible for everything WMF does.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that.
> What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact
> that the board is aware about  these decisions, with the more
> substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
>
> Of course there are other possible solutions.
>
> 2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ <fae...@gmail.com>:
> > 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.
>
> The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
> discussing the *merit* of such bans.
> The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
> department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
> This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
> indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
> by the ToS.
>
> With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
> committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
> with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
> more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.
>
> Cristian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
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