Chris Jenkinson wrote:
As both of you would face legal recourse if you were to divulge private information in your day jobs, what do you think the opposition to having a comparable legal agreement between the Foundation and people with checkuser is due to, given that the situation is reasonably similar?
What, like all the devs, you mean? The volunteer sysadmins? I'd weigh up the possibility they'd say "buggre alle this" and just walk. Don't let me hold you back from this excellent and cautious idea, though.
Would anyone favour the idea of me just handing back the CheckUser bit? I'm this >< close.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
As both of you would face legal recourse if you were to divulge private information in your day jobs, what do you think the opposition to having a comparable legal agreement between the Foundation and people with checkuser is due to, given that the situation is reasonably similar?
What, like all the devs, you mean? The volunteer sysadmins? I'd weigh up the possibility they'd say "buggre alle this" and just walk. Don't let me hold you back from this excellent and cautious idea, though.
Would anyone favour the idea of me just handing back the CheckUser bit? I'm this >< close.
No! We need you! You're sane! You know network stuff!
On 11/14/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Would anyone favour the idea of me just handing back the CheckUser bit? I'm this >< close.
No! We need you! You're sane! You know network stuff!
Is that honestly the nicest thing you can think of to say about David -- that he's sane? Mind you, on Wikipedia, that counts for a lot.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/05, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Would anyone favour the idea of me just handing back the CheckUser bit? I'm this >< close.
No! We need you! You're sane! You know network stuff!
Is that honestly the nicest thing you can think of to say about David -- that he's sane? Mind you, on Wikipedia, that counts for a lot.
He was talking about giving up the CheckUser capability, not leaving Wikipedia.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard stated for the record:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
As both of you would face legal recourse if you were to divulge private information in your day jobs, what do you think the opposition to having a comparable legal agreement between the Foundation and people with checkuser is due to, given that the situation is reasonably similar?
What, like all the devs, you mean? The volunteer sysadmins? I'd weigh up the possibility they'd say "buggre alle this" and just walk. Don't let me hold you back from this excellent and cautious idea, though.
Being less eloquent that David (and , my reply would involve a description of what to pound and where to pound it. I'm already doing an unpleasant job for you, and I'm arrogant enough to think that you should be saying "thank you, is there any way I can make it easier for you?" rather than "you vill zign zee paper volunteering to have your life and your family's life ruined if we don't like the way you do this unpleasant task you volunteered to do for us."
- -- Sean Barrett | You are trapped in a maze of screens and sean@epoptic.org | ssh sessions all alike. It is dark, and you | are likely to log off the wrong account.