On 8/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Michael Turley wrote:
If we don't already have one, we should establish a "permissions trustee" who would keep all such things confidential and in safe keeping, yet be
able
to verify that the permissions stated match the permissions actually on file.
When such permissions are explicited granted to the Wikimedia Foundation, they should be forwarded to an officer of the foundation in any case. I don't know enough about the Wikimedia Foundation to tell you who that is
(or
as indicated above, whether such person exists at this time).
Having this information available to all admins would likely not be any more secure than having it available. Being sensitive to privacy issues has never been a criterion for becoming an admin. On the other hand leaving this with one person could leave him overwhelmed once things start working properly. Putting this through a committee of stewards and bureaucrats could make more practical sense.
Ec
I agree with you completely regarding denying this role to the entire admin population in general.
While I respect the dedication and ability of Bureaucrats, Stewards, and various committees on WIkipedia, I specifically stated "Trustee" because that is a legally defined role with specific legal duties and responsibilities that go with the role. Unless we're extraordinarily lucky, I expect we'll have to pay this Trustee something to accept the legal responsibilities that being such a Trustee entitles.
Perhaps a better title is "Custodian of Records" as exemplified by the adult "entertainment" industry. (In the US, they're required to keep records to prove that all the participating actors and models are over 18 years at the time of production.) I don't know the details of these arrangements other than to say that the role is usually filled by contracting for an attorney to serve through a law firm, but suspect that the Custodian of Records is a specific type of Trustee defined by the law governing that industry.