Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing
lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its
allegations that named individuals have leaked - allegations that by
their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano
question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on
arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what
he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed
great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about
Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that
matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?
Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain.
1) Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always
more transparency.
2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have
access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the
archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean
that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next
few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of archives
used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power.
3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any
records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of
error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal
comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice
minds for years to come.
4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information -
checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of
information needs to be restricted. Arbcom also has a need for internal
deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists,
however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.
I suggest the following:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily
confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be
sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee
confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there
may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject
cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has
been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive
retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an
expectation of confidentiality.
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing
cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through
moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive.
This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs
really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or
private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years
from now.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be
used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly
neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed
to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely -
perhaps 12-24 months only.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the
community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to
defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses
the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
Doc