I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and
friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at
the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF
wikis that are interconnected but run independently.
When we discuss adding another volunteer committee or adding more
responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of
professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper
training and their staff support. If these committees are to function
properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources.
I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group (
beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the
Legal and Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally
banning and locking accounts.
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community
indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than
these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional
whose work is being evaluated.
Sydney Poore
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating
<chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>om>:
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are*
responsible, even if they
aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
responsible for everything WMF does.
Yes, I am aware of that.
What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact
that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more
substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
Of course there are other possible solutions.
2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>om>:
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the
"functionaries of high
trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
by us*.
If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
members with a power of veto.
The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
discussing the *merit* of such bans.
The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
by the ToS.
With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.
Cristian
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>