On 10 April 2013 22:07, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes, 10/04/2013 22:43:
Are you speaking of yourself here? :)As opposed to, speaking as a staffer? Well, I work for Product Development. So the chances of me giving binding policy statements on privacy issues are slim to none :).
No: as opposed to, a staffer that is also not a very active editor. :) The part on personal identifying information is one I understand and that's why I asked about it, but I don't think it should be on officewiki either; the other part on editor background I didn't understand, and I think staffer or editor is the same for that.
When I say "editor background" I mean things like their name, their
personal background - from those interviews I've seen, things like job and location frequently come into it - so on and so forth. I see a fairly substantive difference, there, in whether we give that information to staffers (on a need-to-know basis) or decide to give it to volunteers who are "trusted", for a given value of trusted.
Speaking personally: I can't think of a single good reason why Victor's stuff should be released. [...]
Neither I do. I only asked if they *require* the compartmentalisation that e.g. Tom described – otherwise they could as well happen in a slightly different context (like for instance "use the internal wiki more", given that's the thread we're in).
Yep; there's no reason we should be giving that sort of thing out to
random chapters people or trusted volunteers; they have no use case for it.
An illustration here would be: I've got my engagement strategy for what became Page Curation on officewiki. It's a place where I can write and rewrite it, my bosses can check it for stupid, and if there *is* stupid we catch it before it causes problems.
This is fine. Way better than Google Docs shared with few people and then quickly lost!
Agreed. Every time someone says "we can just use a google doc!" I groan
;p. It's like: you know, if only we *built* a collaborative document editing too-wait.