Hi Dario &amp; all,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for that!</div><div><br></div><div>RCom review is still confusing to me (and I assume to many). I&#39;m not sure how new researchers find out about the need for it (or even about the meta documentation procedures). I think more information/publicity about this could help. One possible and partial approach would be to have a regular (monthly?) summary of and reminder about RCom review sent to this email list.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Jodi</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Dario Taraborelli <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org">dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:So to briefly answer Pine&#39;s questions:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br></div><div>- yes, going through RCom review is the standard procedure we expect all proposals to comply with</div><div>- no, a proposal should not be removed from Meta if it hasn&#39;t been reviewed, it should only be flagged as pending review using the WMF-support template. This also means that Audrey fully complied with the expected procedure to submit a SR request.</div>
<div>- yes, there are privacy concerns, and this is the reason why we take the review of data collection/retention/licensing terms in the proposal very seriously. As these surveys do not fall under the WMF&#39;s privacy policy they are not reviewed by WMF Legal team unless they are considered potentially abusive. The only privacy terms that apply are those displayed on the landing page of a survey and our goal is to support best practices in setting up these terms (for example, by making sure that these terms are explicitly accepted by the participants before entering the survey/experiment, particularly in the case of non-academic studies that are not backed by an explicit IRB approval).</div>
</div></blockquote></div></div>