Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Hi Anthere -
This is a great team, all of whom have my respect. My only question relates
to transparency, and perhaps I just missed an announcement (which is
entirely possible, given the way my life has been lately)
No, there was no formal announcement. The issue was mentionned now and
then on this list and in other places. They were supposed to be there
for one year and then... the issue kept being postponed, though it was
raised frequently here and there.
but.... from where
were these people drawn?
Was there a call for
volunteers?
No, there was none. From experience, it is best to focus on people who
have an experience of check user tool (but avoid the most active of
checkusers, as it is asked to ombudsmen to stop being CU... asking the
most active ones would be problematic). I discussed the issue with
various people I know and trust. On some channels. With Cary. Etc...
Did the board
simply select highly qualified men and women (which is
- in my opinion -
entirely within their purview)?
I selected these people based on recommandations of various parties.
Then I asked feedback from the internal community.
Was the legal counsel or the consultant to
the board involved?
They are part of the internal community. I asked Mike a couple of times
in the past 3 months to review the privacy policy, discuss with
ombudsmen etc...
I think neither Sue nor Mike could really bring much more, simply
because they would rely on recommandations just as I did myself. I also
have a community experience they do not have.
I have no issue with the group that was selected, nor
with the mission of
the group, I'm simply curious where the names came from.
Enlightened despotism :-)
Thanks,
Philippe
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Florence Devouard" <anthere(a)anthere.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 10:20 AM
To: <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Ombuds-wo-men commission
Hello,
It has been over a year since the first commission was appointed. It was
high time for renewal. I would like to thank you our previous team,
Nathan, Steve and Enders for their help over the past year (their task
was not always very easy), and welcome the new team
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mackensen
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rebecca
*
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hei_ber
The ombudsman commission is tasked with processing complaints about
violations of the privacy policy on any Wikimedia project, in particular
concerning the use of CheckUser tools. The ombudsman is tasked with
investigating cases of such policy breach or CheckUser abuse for the
board in an official manner. They will mediate between the complainant
and the respondent (usually a CheckUser, bureaucrat, administrator, or
arbitration committee member). When legally necessary, the ombudsman
will assist the general counsel, the executive director or the board in
handling the case.
Since the issue was raised during the year, let me repeat that the
commission is not here to fix various disagreements and abuse reports,
but is dedicated to issues related to privacy policy infringments.
These people were selected to provide a healthy mix of language, project
and gender diversity. Two have been CU, so are familiar with this role
and the issues related to CU activities. The third is deeply interested
in privacy policy issues. All have been highly recommanded. I hope you
will feel confortable with them joining this commission.
More on the commission here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Best
Florence
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l