Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful anyway. This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the first place. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pete Forsyth Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that are reliably adhered to. It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that. Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?) -Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since it seems > > that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder > > whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point > > more clearly. > > Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February: > > #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~# > > We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not > answered, above, some arising from that discussion): > > 1. what are OTRS' rules and policies? > 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not > public? > 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? > 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed > (or reworded for clarity)? > 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? > 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? > 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's > OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? > 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their > permissions? > 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen? > > Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister > projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels > of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions > are confidential. > > #~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~# > > Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how. > > You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in > it, when you replied: > > Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in > the interests of OTRS > agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of > questions in a > forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing > policies and a process > for amending policies) > > shortly after I posted it. > > Or did you have some other unclear post in mind? > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
