We're dealing with a diverse community here, and at the same time people
often want to imply information without making it explicit. I rather have
that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed,
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter. This is why I
noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist. There are actually a few policies
linked at [[m:OTRS <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS>]], that are
simply copied there (Access, Activity policies). There is some stuff about
privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing
that exciting.
There is plenty of other 'stuff' on that wiki - which may or may not have
to be confidential. I wouldn't be against someone combing through that and
looking what can be published - at their own peril. The point is, nobody
seems willing or able to do that. These pages have accumulated over the
years, and it's simply not going to help anyone to triplicate that effort.
I'm not fundamentally against it, I just don't think it's a good use of
time and energy. I for sure ain't gonna do that, even if you paid me for
it.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try
to analyze that with overly broad questions. I suspect you could spend a
few years worth of research on understanding it. That is why I tried to get
at the bottom of what Andy actually wants, so that I can try to help with
that. Given that Andy seems unwilling to make the questions narrower (my
interpretation) - that ends this conversation on my side, as I have little
more to contribute.
Lodewijk
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:25 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
Seems to me that if someone does not specify a
motivation, we leave it as
that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get
an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question
may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful
anyway.
This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know
the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not
really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than
wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about
something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system.
What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information
has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was
asked in the first place.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Pete Forsyth
Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place
where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that
are reliably adhered to.
It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public
discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be
happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which
amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something
they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about
your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I
could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you
think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am
rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts
or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth
<peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Since it seems
> that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder
> whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this
point
more
clearly.
Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27
February:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not
answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
1. what are OTRS' rules and policies?
2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public?
3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided?
4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed
(or reworded for clarity)?
5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS
agent?
7. what is the process for the community to
remove an individual's
OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
(including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
permissions?
10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister
projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels
of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions
are confidential.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in
it, when you replied:
Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in
the interests of OTRS
agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of
questions in a
forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing
policies and a process
for amending policies)
shortly after I posted it.
Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>