On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
My problem wasn't in regard to a biography,
but it was a "BLP issue"
under
Sue's expanded definition (it was in regard
to some things written about
me
in the Wikipedia namespace).
Was this part of a larger dispute that was already being considered by
the ArbCom?
No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't
want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
I'm sure the process has changed in the years
since, though. Does the
current process ask people if they're
satisfied?
If you mean "ask" as in, do we work like Microsoft which puts a "If
this response was helpful, click here, if not, please click here to
send an email to my manager" (or along these lines) at the end of each
support email, then no.
Yeah, that was my question.
However, we assume that people who are not satisfied will follow up by
way of response and then, see above...
The "Microsoft option" is rather impractical, as there is no hierarchy
in OTRS, we don't have "supervisors" or "managers" to whom
emails
could be referred.
It'd be nice for statistical purposes, in order to gauge how well you're
doing, though. Ultimately it'd probably lead to a system with
"supervisors"
or "managers", since that's a much better way of doing things.
But again, each email includes a footer that says that this response
comes from a group of volunteers and that formal
follow-up would need
to be done in a certified letter to the foundation.
Ah, so not only do you not ask for feedback, but you actively discourage it.