Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[David Gerard]

On 9 February 2011 19:33, Strainu  wrote:

> Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought
> it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?


Yes. The previous arrangement was pretty much security theatre. I
emailed a scan of my driver's licence - it was genuine (OMG, the
Foundation know where I live!), but constructing a plausible fake
would have been ridiculously easy for pretty much anyone.

What is the threat model the new arrangement is intended to address?
This needs to be explained.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Strainu]

2011/2/5 Steven Walling :
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
>
> My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you
>> preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the
>> community
>> prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l.
>>  You
>> just don't get it.
>>
>
> I do not mean that gossip should be preferred over public announcements as
> standard operating procedure. Considering that I've made numerous
> announcements about my work to this very list (IRC office hours, 10th
> anniversary organizing etc.) I think that's clear.
>
> What I meant is that there is no way to prevent informal discussion about
> something that has yet to be announced, so there's no reason to fret over
> it. What I *do *find unhelpful is publicly posting about sensitive topic
> when you know in advance that people aren't prepared to answer questions
> about it yet.

How about giving up the whole "announcing" thing that seems to become
the norm lately and going with "redacting the policy with the
community"?

I second fully what Aaron Adrignola said above. I could find no
discussion about this on the OTRS wiki, and the otrs-en list is not
for every OTRS volunteer. I personally do not feel willing to give up
my private data to WMF or any other organisation in the US for that
matter, and there is no chapter in my country. It's more than enough
that I gave my real name. Imposing this decision without consultation
with the whole community, or AT LEAST with all the OTRS volunteers is
very poor judgement from the Foundation.

Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought
it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?

Strainu

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Teofilo]

2011/2/4 MZMcBride :
> Hi.
>
> This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general
> information and discussion.
>
> Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the
> policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.

As a Commons user seeing every day the limits and the potential harm
there is in using any picture-authorizing E-mail system, I think that
the opinion of Commons users should be taken into account before
making any significant policy change affecting Commons.

Sometimes I think the pictures currently tagged with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:OTRS cannot realistically
be reused by reusers (because the reusers are not allowed to see the
terms of the permission (1) and to know the identity of the E-mail
sender). This absence of conditions where the pictures are
realistically reusable by anybody apart from the Wikimedia Foundation
itself (which can read the E-mails) make these pictures objectively
unfree (even if from a legal perspective they are licensed under a
free license), not belonging to the kind of free works mentioned on
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . The reusers must be in a
position to check by themselves that the work is free. I.E. know the
phone number of the person who reportedly issued the license and phone
there to check that it is true.

With the OTRS picture permission system, we are reinventing something
that is hardly different for the non-Wikimedia reusers than the
"Wikipedia only" permissions that had been banned by Jimbo Wales in
May 2005 (2).

If the foundation wants to identify more carefully its volunteers, it
could means that it is gearing up to retaliate against any volunteer
who would make a mistake. This in turn affects my relations as a
Wikimedia Commons user with the volunteers with the prospect that if I
ask a volunteer to do something difficult and if, for some reason, he
makes a mistake, he will be harmed when the Wikimedia Foundation
retaliates against him. In turn I should try less to rely on these
volunteers out of fear that they might be harmed.

The OTRS volunteers are left on their own in such a perilous situation
that concretely it is better not to involve them. So in fact they are
not as useful as you might think.

I think we should go back to the community self-reliance motto
expressed by Jimbo Wales in his New Statesman interview (3). And try
to do most of the communication between uploaders and the Commons
community on the wiki talk pages rather than on a Foundation-owned
private E-mail system nobody can read. The wiki being public is a
protection. If someone says something bad on a wiki, there are at
least witnesses, and people who can show support. The wiki being
public makes talks written on it available to non-Wikimedia reusers,
enabling them to make their own decision on whether the file is really
free, and licensed by a person who has enough authority to do so.

(1) While the licensing terms are often clear, the extent of the
permission (number of pictures, a whole website or not, whether the
permission applies to pictures made available in the future, what
happens if a discrepancy occurs in the future - not to say at present!
- between the agreed terms and the mentioned website's terms of use)
is not always so clear. The quality of the person (the boss of the
company or corporation, or a person with a low rank in the hierarchy,
a technical webmaster not usually having authority to engage the
company's assets, or even a volunteer not hired as a salaryman by the
licencing party, as was one envisaged hypothesis when dealing with the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) is never clear.
(2) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html
(3) "thinking about community participation and involvement, a spirit
of volunteerism, a spirit of helping out, a spirit of self-reliance"
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-vote

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Steven Walling]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:

My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you
> preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the
> community
> prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l.
>  You
> just don't get it.
>

I do not mean that gossip should be preferred over public announcements as
standard operating procedure. Considering that I've made numerous
announcements about my work to this very list (IRC office hours, 10th
anniversary organizing etc.) I think that's clear.

What I meant is that there is no way to prevent informal discussion about
something that has yet to be announced, so there's no reason to fret over
it. What I *do *find unhelpful is publicly posting about sensitive topic
when you know in advance that people aren't prepared to answer questions
about it yet.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Birgitte SB]

- Original Message 
> From: Steven Walling 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and 
>procedures
> 
> I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine  and
> Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to  post
> about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be  answered.

Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing 
is 
entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this 
particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere 
animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond.

My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you 
preferred "the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community 
prior to an official announcement" (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l.  
You 
just don't get it.

Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a 
huge 
difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and 
endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be 
endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the "Community" 
department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of 
understanding and/or leadership in that department. 


Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency.  Gossip excludes those 
that 
are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different 
languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip 
deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the 
quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale.  Every 
single one of these values should be a significant concern of the "Community" 
department given the current state of things. [1]

Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped.  But people can personally try 
to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip 
to 
the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising 
of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they 
should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip. 


Birgitte SB


[1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated 
positively. Just to prevent anyone who has  never given the issue much thought 
from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil. 


Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). 
Gossip is  probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you 
few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses 
insignificant).  Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is 
more  
passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care 
less 
strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy 
before distribution). Gossip is better than  nothing in short-term 
considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant)

Gossip != Evil  Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. 
Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals 
of the Wikimedia movement. 


  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

Steven Walling wrote:
> I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and
> Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post
> about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.

>From what I've read here and elsewhere, you're about the only person
expressing moral outrage and indignation over these recent decisions being
discussed in a public forum. I'm not sure this is particularly surprising
given where you've been working the past few months, however, so I don't
hold it against you.

Given that this was discussed for weeks and then announced, I don't think
waiting for anyone to return from vacation is necessary for a discussion,
especially if there's a broader discussion being held about the virtue of
the entire identification process. (For anyone who missed it, please read
Risker's post in this topic.) This is all to say nothing of the fact that no
single person in an organization should be so critical that their absence
creates these types of issues.

As I said in my opening post, these questions can wait for Philippe's return
if they can't be addressed by others in the meantime, though as you've taken
it upon yourself to jump in here, if you have a free minute, I'm sure a lot
of people would appreciate some real content here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers

And slightly tangential to the topic at hand, please don't top-post. I'm not
sure about others, but I read the public mailing list archives occasionally
and it makes a complete mess when people don't post inline (even if Gmail
and some other web clients collapse the content neatly).

Further reading:
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Staff_characteristics
* https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Austin Hair]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
>> From: Steven Walling 
>> Demanding  answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
>> upcoming  change trickling out into the community prior to an official
>> announcement.  The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
>> discussion about  a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
>
> I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive
> discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably 
> and
> the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being
> repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems 
> otherwise,
> it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring
> discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the
> gossip network.  I take issue with the implication that you would not object 
> to
> someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being
> spread here.

Personally, I can't say that I care much about new OTRS
requirements—WMF obviously has all the information it could possibly
want from me, and what's apparently being proposed doesn't offend me
in the slightest.

I have to say, though, that Birgitte put this very well. Favoring
gossip over straight answers doesn't sit well with me, even if it
works better for the staff schedule.

And yes, others have been right to point out that while otrs-en-l may
be the de facto list for OTRS discussion, it's still limited to the
info-en crowd and not really a fair forum for policy decisions.

Speaking only for myself,

Austin

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[phoebe ayers]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, whothis  wrote:
> I agree with Brigitte completely.
>
> Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with
> your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the
> staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like
> we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for
> that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.

I'm not trying to answer anything... rather, envisioning a perfect
world. Call it aspirational.

-- phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[whothis]

Hi Steven Walling, I would say your tone might have been a bit abrasive from
the beginning but I am assuming good faith.

I absolutely love Michael Snow's take on the situation, I hope that the
staff members are reading it too.

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 2:20 AM, Steven Walling wrote:

> I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and
> Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post
> about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.


You're mentioning something only staff personnel would/should know here. I
would have to assume what role you're speaking as now- staff, OTRS volunteer
or a community member.

>


> To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at
> wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the
> offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and
> who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're
> project-based and different projects have different needs.
>

There is absolutely no new information in that statement beyond that you're
a fellow. I never questioned you my dear.

I only asked for clarification on what roles fellows are playing now, they
seem to span from quasi-staff members to advisory board members to full
staff members to grant recipient to whatever fellows are actually supposed
to be. I was only asking for a little clarification, that's all.


Thanks.


Elizabeth.


> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Michael Snow  >wrote:
>
> > On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> > > I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though
> they
> > had
> > > originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
> > information
> > > from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often
> > ignorant
> > > because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been
> taking
> > pains
> > > for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have
> > noticed a
> > > continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that
> despite
> > what I
> > > would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message,
> > he is
> > > still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
> > issue
> > > altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
> > efforts
> > > and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard
> > things to
> > > do; thank you.
> > I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not
> > fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to
> > a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a
> > forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be
> > more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things,
> > surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing
> > it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does
> > require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is
> > productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public
> > discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media
> > approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter.
> > They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly
> > maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the
> > pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand
> > further improvement.
> >
> > On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done
> > to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel.
> > I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically
> > dedicated to communications with the community. As the current
> > communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more
> > external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've
> > been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined
> > in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I
> > would hope to see such a position relatively soon.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Sorry my karma ran over your dogma.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Steven Walling]

I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and
Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post
about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered.

To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at
wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the
offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and
who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're
project-based and different projects have different needs.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Michael Snow wrote:

> On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> > I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they
> had
> > originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
> information
> > from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often
> ignorant
> > because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking
> pains
> > for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have
> noticed a
> > continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite
> what I
> > would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message,
> he is
> > still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
> issue
> > altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
> efforts
> > and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard
> things to
> > do; thank you.
> I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not
> fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to
> a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a
> forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be
> more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things,
> surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing
> it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does
> require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is
> productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public
> discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media
> approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter.
> They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly
> maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the
> pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand
> further improvement.
>
> On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done
> to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel.
> I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically
> dedicated to communications with the community. As the current
> communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more
> external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've
> been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined
> in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I
> would hope to see such a position relatively soon.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Michael Snow]

On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had
> originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information
> from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
> because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking 
> pains
> for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a
> continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite 
> what I
> would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is
> still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue
> altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts
> and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard things 
> to
> do; thank you.
I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not 
fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to 
a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a 
forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be 
more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, 
surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing 
it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does 
require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is 
productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public 
discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media 
approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. 
They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly 
maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the 
pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand 
further improvement.

On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done 
to minimize the "need" for the gossip network as an information channel. 
I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically 
dedicated to communications with the community. As the current 
communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more 
external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've 
been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined 
in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I 
would hope to see such a position relatively soon.

--Michael Snow

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[whothis]

I agree with Brigitte completely.

Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with
your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the
staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like
we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for
that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve.

Though I am surprised to see a "fellow" defending a staff decision and
calling himself a staff person earlier, does that mean the other
5-6-whatever fellows are staff too?

The staff can answer or ignore like Brigitte said or even better, as the
"Chief Community officer" said "we really should wait until Philippe gets
back..." for answers.

Elizabeth


On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> - Original Message 
> > From: Steven Walling 
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> > Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and
> >procedures
> >
> 
> >
> > Demanding  answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about
> an
> > upcoming  change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> > announcement.  The latter does no harm. The former can derail a
> productive
> > discussion about  a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
> >
>
> I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive
> discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably
> and
> the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being
> repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems
> otherwise,
> it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only
> bring
> discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the
> gossip network.  I take issue with the implication that you would not
> object to
> someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being
> spread here.
>
>
> I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they
> had
> originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his
> information
> from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant
> because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking
> pains
> for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed
> a
> continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite
> what I
> would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he
> is
> still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the
> issue
> altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your
> efforts
> and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard
> things to
> do; thank you.
>
>
> The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is
> not
> because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive
> tone
> on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend
> of
> responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral
> questions
> leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of
> wrongdoing
> in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of
> seeking
> information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other.
>  Of
> course, gossiping is most effective of all.  But I for one, care enough
> about
> the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to
> integrate
> newcomers as to prefer ignorance.
>
> Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain
> volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a
> lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
> it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least
> why
> there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
> intentional? Was it simply an oversight?


I've had off-hand conversations with many fellow agents over the past couple
years that were glancing discussions about the privacy policy and OTRS.
 Many were concerned about applying because of their transparency in ID not
to the WMF, but other volunteers.  Trust is a valuable thing and it is very
hard to build in an online medium.  As a subscriber to both otrs-en-l and
otrs-admins-l, I can assure you and the community that there was no closed
door conversation with a dozen people on a private mailing list responsible.
  It's the WMF's call, and one that I happen to support.


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Birgitte SB]

- Original Message 
> From: Steven Walling 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and 
>procedures
> 

> 
> Demanding  answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
> upcoming  change trickling out into the community prior to an official
> announcement.  The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
> discussion about  a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.
> 

I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive 
discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and 
the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being 
repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, 
it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring 
discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the 
gossip network.  I take issue with the implication that you would not object to 
someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being 
spread here. 


I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had 
originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information 
from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant 
because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains 
for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a 
continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what 
I 
would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is 
still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue 
altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts 
and I appreciate them a great deal.  Introspection and change are hard things 
to 
do; thank you. 


The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not 
because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive 
tone 
on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of 
responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions 
leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing 
in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking 
information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other.  Of 
course, gossiping is most effective of all.  But I for one, care enough about 
the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate 
newcomers as to prefer ignorance.

Birgitte SB



  

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[phoebe ayers]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:59 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> phoebe ayers wrote:
>> It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
>> changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
>> so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
>> or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
>> would be announced.
>
> In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have
> tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
> allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
> staff." I don't disagree.
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.)

Fair enough! In a general context -- not related to this specific
issue -- I would love to see some better best practices for how to
conduct these kinds of discussions in a fair and appropriate way. Some
general principles that I wish everyone would keep in mind all the
time:

1. everyone should assume good faith of everyone else. It doesn't help
on that front when messages are accusative or otherwise bite-y.
Remember that we're all newbies in some situations; everyone has stuff
to bring to the table and everyone (in my experience) tries really
hard to do the right thing. We are all (staff and volunteers)
"Wikimedia community members".

2. the staff does many things that the community is not aware of, and
has concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known;
they may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely
known.

3. the community does many things the staff is not aware of, and has
concerns and policies to follow that are not always widely known; they
may also have certain areas of expertise that are not widely known.

4. not all community members are in "the same place"; e.g. not all the
stewards read the OTRS list, we all know that not everyone reads
foundation-l, etc. People who have similar concerns may be in widely
dispersed areas, not to mention the language-barrier issue.

5. as a corollary to 2, 3 & 4, it is probably best to have an open
discussion about issues that affect work that is done both by
community members and staff members.

6. as we have seen in all discussions since time immemorial, when you
have a big group of people discussing an issue some people have
expertise and points of view that they can add to the discussion that
are novel and useful (e.g. the community member who spoke up about
this on the OTRS list who is a security expert IRL); and some people
don't. There will also always be people who don't read the discussion
or have another ax to grind. It is also generally difficult to
determine consensus in this situation if there are many competing
ideas.

7. because of 4 and 6, there is a challenge in making big discussions
inclusive, productive and non-whiny, and in drawing conclusions from
them. It is however possible, and has been done before.

8. principle 7 is further complicated by the fact that sometimes there
are other mandates that affect the situation, e.g. from the board or
from "on high" (sorry, we can't change tax law). Most of the time,
however, this is not the case; we have a very wide latitude in
determining the best course of action to take in how to successfully
run the projects and foundation, which actually makes things harder a
lot of the time. We run the show, but we have to figure out how to do
it.

9. we are doing something that is complicated, novel, and unlike any
other situation -- a community running what is now the 5th largest
website in the world. People will and have made mistakes. Many best
practices from other situations, like businesses hiring employees, are
not applicable. However, we do have an internal body of best practices
that have been honed over time (like not voting and open discussions)
that actually prove useful much of the time.

10. Wikimedians love to give their 0.02 {local currency here} and tend
to get seriously annoyed when they don't get the chance to do so.

Now, how do we take this situation and have a productive conversation
that results in, for instance, the best damn strategy for volunteers
accessing private data that the world has ever seen?

-- phoebe, speaking as a community member only

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Aaron Adrignola]

This is the first I've heard about this, as an OTRS volunteer for an English
language non-info-en queue.  I do not have the luxury of being subscribed to
the OTRS mailing list, as it's restricted to those with access to the
info-en queue.  That subset of OTRS members is not equal to all of them.
Therefore I was not been privy to the aforementioned discussion, which
involves procedures that theoretically would affect me.  I do see that there
is discussion of it on the OTRS wiki.

-- Adrignola
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Bartol Flint]

Wait, so the policy change is about to be implemented, the discussion on
private list has been going on for a while.

Some peoples already submitted their IDs and the deadline for ID submission
is in a few weeks...and asking about it here is being called presumptuous.

How is it a "good-faith interpretation" for not announcing the changes since
they've already started implementing it ? they even decided on a deadline
already. I don't follow.

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> phoebe ayers wrote:
> > It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
> > changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
> > so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
> > or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
> > would be announced.
>
> In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people
> have
> tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
> allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
> staff." I don't disagree.
>
> My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
> announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
> courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain
> volunteers
> need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a
> lot
> of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
> considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
> it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least
> why
> there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
> intentional? Was it simply an oversight?
>
> Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes
> (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the
> pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department
> doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the
> community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.
>
> Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going
> to
> announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't
> seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not,
> it
> leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like
> these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and
> thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS
> mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.
>
> > The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers,
> and
> > there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of
> course,
> > broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to
> non-private
> > data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have
> thoughts
> > they should weigh in.
>
> People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being
> chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see
> how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some
> posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring
> here primarily to Steven's posts).
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
Bartol Flint
Student
Erasmus University Rotterdam
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
> changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
> so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
> or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
> would be announced.

In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have
tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as "but Wikimedia is
allowed to do this" and "the non-public data access policy is determined by
staff." I don't disagree.

My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the
announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a
courtesy heads-up ("we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers
need to identify") would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot
of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not
considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS
mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue,
it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why
there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it
intentional? Was it simply an oversight?

Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes
(and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the
pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department
doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the
community. That's the larger issue, as I see it.

Some of the comments in this thread have read like "oh, but we were going to
announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately." That doesn't
seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it
leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like
these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and
thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS
mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this.

> The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and
> there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course,
> broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private
> data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts
> they should weigh in.

People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being
chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see
how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some
posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring
here primarily to Steven's posts).

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Nathan]

Why is it such a transgression to bring the discussion to
foundation-l? The change was discussed on meta, announced on the otrs
lists, etc... I'm not clear on what was left to decide in the
discussion on OTRS, or why that discussion couldn't happen on a list
with broader participation. The Foundation's position on
identification affects not only OTRS volunteers, but also stewards,
checkusers and ombuds committee members, among others, and anyone who
is considering volunteering for those roles.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[phoebe ayers]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Steven Walling wrote:
>>> These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
>> [...]
>>> Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
>>> part of my job)...
>>
>> I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
>> discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at
>> least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
>> exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being
>> discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes
>> had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
>> Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a
>> courtesy heads-up)?
>
> I will note, as a member of both of these lists, that you did not
> actually ask these questions - at least not publicly, that I could
> find - before sending a note to foundation-l. Probably doing so would
> have been helpful :)
>
> It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
> changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
> so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
> or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
> would be announced. The original announcement did affect only a
> limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it
> would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the
> issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should
> have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should
> weigh in.

er, private data :) Of course if you want to discuss non-private data
too, go for it!

phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Steven Walling wrote:
>> These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
> [...]
>> Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
>> part of my job)...
>
> I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
> discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at
> least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
> exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being
> discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes
> had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
> Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a
> courtesy heads-up)?

I will note, as a member of both of these lists, that you did not
actually ask these questions - at least not publicly, that I could
find - before sending a note to foundation-l. Probably doing so would
have been helpful :)

It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing
changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was
so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change
or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what
would be announced. The original announcement did affect only a
limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it
would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the
issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should
have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should
weigh in.

For those not on the OTRS list, it's a list that is used
(unsurprisingly) for coordinating OTRS -- things like "there's a new
template for common question XYZ". It is and has always been a closed
list, because access to OTRS is closed and some things are sensitive
("hey, did can we merge all the mails from this person?") It is
typically pretty unexciting -- this is the longest discussion I think
I've ever seen on it in my 5+ years of being subscribed :)

-- phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Zack Exley]

Max,

Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we
really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple
of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with
other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion
without Philippe.

Zack



On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> > I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with
> > access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...
>
> Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted
> content, which is non-public data.
>
> > We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so,
> that
> > will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to
> the
> > community.
>
> How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and
> security to the community?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 

Zack Exley
Chief Community Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
> I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with
> access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation...

Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted
content, which is non-public data.

> We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that
> will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the
> community.

How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and
security to the community?

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Theo10011]

Steven,The Meta page for OTRS was updated to reflect the changes from Feb 1.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341291


http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=OTRS/volunteering/Header&diff=prev&oldid=2341294

People
have made numerous mentions of the Identification issue publicly on Meta.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#OTRS_Access


Regards


Theo


On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Steven Walling wrote:

> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Steven Walling wrote:
> > > These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
> > [...]
> > > Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative
> > isn't
> > > part of my job)...
> >
> > I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
> > discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for
> > at
> > least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
> > exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were
> > being
> > discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these
> changes
> > had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
> > Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it
> a
> > courtesy heads-up)?
> >
> > > No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> > > isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
> > couple
> > > days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
> > potentially
> > > involved here.
> >
> > Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves
> the
> > community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes
> absolutely
> > no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
> > retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
> > implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
> > their private information.
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Christine Moellenberndt
 wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Yes, there are some changes happening.  We announced it to the OTRS
> volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this
> change.  Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they
> would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if
> requested.  I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says
> that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation,
> OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID
> if asked, we're now asking them to do so.  We are working with the OTRS
> volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the
> Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.
>
> -Christine and the vacationing Philippe
>
> -
> Christine Moellenberndt
> Community Associate
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> christ...@wikimedia.org
>

My issue is that I've already identified, verified, ok'd, and it
seems, that's not nough anymore, now WMF wants to keep a permanent
record of who am I, with the possible implications of it.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Christine Moellenberndt]

Hi everyone,

Yes, there are some changes happening.  We announced it to the OTRS 
volunteers as they are the first to be directly impacted by this 
change.  Part of being an OTRS volunteer is the agreement that they 
would be willing to provide identification to the Foundation if 
requested.  I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says 
that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation, 
OTRS volunteers have served with the understanding that they agree to ID 
if asked, we're now asking them to do so.  We are working with the OTRS 
volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the 
Board but will also provide safety and security to the community.

-Christine and the vacationing Philippe

-
Christine Moellenberndt
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation

christ...@wikimedia.org


On 2/3/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Hi.
>
> This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general
> information and discussion.
>
> Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the
> policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information
> will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.
>
> This raises a number of questions:
> * Who made these decisions?
> * Why were these decisions made?
> * Who was consulted about these decisions?
> * Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before
> these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a)
> the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the
> virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already
> stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these
> changes.)
> * Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents?
> * As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought?
> (And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a
> General Counsel currently?)
> * What will the data retention policies be for the collected information?
> * What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information?
> * Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does
> this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy?
> * Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in
> practice)?
>
> Looking at this more broadly:
> * What's the virtue of identification?
> * Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the
> identities are not verified?
> * Can the submitted information be verified?
> * Should the submitted information be verified?
>
> In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at
> least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia:
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability
>
> I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and
> the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki
> here:.
> I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.
>
> Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010
> fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the
> Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these
> questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the
> questions can wait until Philippe returns.
>
> However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be
> publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of
> the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always
> destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time,
> but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented
> and discussed.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Steven Walling]

Risker,

I'm not arguing here about the merits of the change itself. All I said is
that demanding answers about a very sensitive discussion on a private
mailing list is inappropriate right now, and that there's no reason to
panic, since the standard operating procedure is to make a public
announcement about something when a project is ready.

Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an
upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official
announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive
discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling  wrote:
>
> > The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st.
> I
> > know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> > procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
> >
> >
> Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other
> staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However,
> thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of
> volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it
> surface, is just a little bit naive.
>
> Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places,
> which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the
> instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended.  Simply put,
> identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it
> cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom
> they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less
> protection.  Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully
> addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every*
> identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS
> agents identifying.  We have a pile of people about to run in the steward
> elections, will it affect them?
>
> I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to
> nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this
> information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that,
> and it never was.
>
> Risker/Anne
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Risker]

On 3 February 2011 22:27, Steven Walling  wrote:

> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.
>
>
Steven, I recognize you're in a difficult spot here, and so are some other
staff members who I know are genuinely working in good faith here. However,
thinking that one could send out an instruction like that to hundreds of
volunteers throughout all of these different projects, and not having it
surface, is just a little bit naive.

Further, there are some serious concerns being expressed in various places,
which go all the way down to whether or not the resolution on which the
instruction is based actually has the effect that is intended.  Simply put,
identifying to the WMF does not, in law, make a person accountable, if it
cannot be proven that they know what they're accountable for, or to whom
they are accountable. Unverified identification provides even less
protection.  Methods of securing the data have not been addressed fully
addressed, nor has the issue of whether this applies to *every*
identification made to the WMF as of now, or if it applies only to OTRS
agents identifying.  We have a pile of people about to run in the steward
elections, will it affect them?

I support the notion of individuals with advanced permissions and access to
nonpublic information being accountable to the WMF for the use of this
information. But sending in an unverified document isn't going to do that,
and it never was.

Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Steven Walling  wrote:
> The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
> know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
> procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.

at the english otrs list, to be precise

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Steven Walling]

The discussion has only been going on at the OTRS list sine February 1st. I
know a public announcement is coming because it's standard operating
procedure at the Foundation. Please be patient.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Steven Walling wrote:
> > These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
> [...]
> > Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative
> isn't
> > part of my job)...
>
> I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
> discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for
> at
> least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
> exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were
> being
> discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes
> had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
> Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a
> courtesy heads-up)?
>
> > No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> > isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last
> couple
> > days out of respect for the people whose personal information is
> potentially
> > involved here.
>
> Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the
> community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely
> no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
> retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
> implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
> their private information.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

Steven Walling wrote:
> These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public...
[...]
> Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
> part of my job)...

I don't follow. How do you know that these changes were going to be
discussed and documented in public? These changes have been discussed for at
least some portion of January without any community involvement. When,
exactly, was the community going be made aware that these changes were being
discussed? When was the community going to be made aware that these changes
had been implemented? An announcement has already been made. When was the
Community Department going to involve the community (at least to give it a
courtesy heads-up)?

> No one can give definitive answers about a process that
> isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple
> days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially
> involved here.

Can you explain this further? You won't discuss an issue that involves the
community because of respect for what? What you're saying makes absolutely
no sense. If basic questions can't be answered about, for example, data
retention after this change has been announced (and to an extent
implemented), I don't see how Wikimedia is respecting its volunteers or
their private information.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Steven Walling]

These changes were going to be discussed and documented in public, but they
weren't announced publicly yet because staff are still in discussion on the
OTRS mailing list and wiki with those volunteers about the best way for the
new identification process to work. OTRS volunteers and the groups who've
had to identify in the past are the ones most affected by this change, so
it's prudent to discuss it with them before making any general announcement.

Speaking as an OTRS volunteer not as a staff member (this initiative isn't
part of my job), I think it was completely inappropriate to prematurely
divulge activity in those forums. The people who are being asked to identify
are working with staff to reach a consensus on the safest and most agreeable
way to go forward. No one can give definitive answers about a process that
isn't finalized yet, and it's been conducted in private for the last couple
days out of respect for the people whose personal information is potentially
involved here.

On Feb 3, 2011 5:28 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:
> Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

Nathan wrote:
> Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?

An e-mail was sent by an OTRS admin to (at least)
otrs-e...@lists.wikimedia.org and otrs-permission...@lists.wikimedia.org on
February 1, 2011 announcing these changes. I personally don't see any reason
that the author or contents of that announcement e-mail need to be kept
private, but I'll leave it up to that individual to make that call.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[Nathan]

Where were the changes announced, and who announced them?

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures

[MZMcBride]

Hi.

This doesn't seem to have hit this list yet, so I'm posting here for general
information and discussion.

Effective February 1, 2011, there are two substantive changes to the
policies and procedures surrounding identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The first change is that OTRS agents will now be required to identify to the
Wikimedia Foundation. The second change is that the submitted information
will now be retained, when it was previously destroyed.

This raises a number of questions:
* Who made these decisions?
* Why were these decisions made?
* Who was consulted about these decisions?
* Was potential impact to OTRS or other volunteer groups measured before
these decisions were made? (This is particularly important given that (a)
the collected information is not verified, raising questions about the
virtue of this entire process; and (b) certain volunteers have already
stated they will no longer volunteer in a particular capacity due to these
changes.)
* Will these decisions extend beyond OTRS agents?
* As identification is primarily a legal issue, was legal counsel sought?
(And if legal counsel was sought, who was involved, given the lack of a
General Counsel currently?)
* What will the data retention policies be for the collected information?
* What will the data destruction policies be for the collected information?
* Under what circumstances can this collected information be released? Does
this information fall under the standard Wikimedia privacy policy?
* Who has access to the submitted information (both in theory and in
practice)?

Looking at this more broadly:
* What's the virtue of identification?
* Is there a reasonable rationale or justification for it, given that the
identities are not verified?
* Can the submitted information be verified?
* Should the submitted information be verified?

In the interest of transparency, I should note that I've been involved in at
least two discussions about identification on the English Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identification
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_accountability

I believe these issues are of interest to both the Wikimedia community and
the outside community. As such, I've posted these questions to Meta-Wiki
here: .
I encourage others to add questions or improve the page as they see fit.

Philippe is taking a well-deserved vacation currently following the 2010
fundraiser, but other members of both the Community Department and the
Wikimedia Foundation should be able to answer most or all of these
questions. If others aren't able to answer some of these questions, the
questions can wait until Philippe returns.

However, I believe it's very important that these questions and answers be
publicly available as soon as reasonably possible, especially given some of
the past explicit statements that said, for example, that IDs are always
destroyed. (To be clear, these statements weren't inaccurate at the time,
but now are.) Substantive changes such as these should be well-documented
and discussed.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l