Michael Snow writes:
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I read those comments primarily as a defense against a perceived "prosecution" for allegedly violating the privacy policy.
I don't read them that way - rather as saying "This isn't clearly in violation; it has been working for a long time and has been publicly discussed before, ending in [default] acceptance; we weren't given any notice. What gives?"
BrianBrian.Mingus@colorado.edu writes:
This argument - which is effectively that community members should be considered Wikimedia Foundation staff members - is very brittle. It is neither sound nor valid. Do yourself a favor and consider the logic of the other side. It will save you from confusion later when you realize that you were the only person who didn't see it earlier.
Peter said that he could run whatever was being done on an external server on a WMF machine that [core] developers have access to. What does this have to do with being Foundation staff?
Peter Gervai writes:
But we - as huwp - don't stick to this server, as I mentioned, and I'd gladly put it up on WMF servers, even if this do not really mean or change anything. But I find it unacceptable that anyone kill off the stats which was running for plenty of years now, without even trying to look around. I see that it's pretty easy, since neither of you use it, it's somebody else's problem. Try to see for a moment like it's not.
And since it was okay for the past 5 years I'd be glad if you would continue the discussion WHILE reverting your changes. I don't believe a few days would make a difference.
This seems like the heart of the matter. It sounds as though hu:wp wants to find a way to continue having access to stats; are happy to make this happen in a way that other devs are comfortable with (and willing to help), but feel slighted.
Robert Rhode writes:
Sorry for the abrupt way that things were handled, but erring on the side of protecting user privacy is generally a good thing. Now that you are here discussing the matter, I'd hope a reasonable solution can be found.
You said it. While f-l isn't the place to find a technical solution (though this thread looks promising - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-June/043335.html), it may be the right place to discuss how to foreshadow and discuss changes that address the power balance between local and global projects. I can imagine similar changes resulting from adding a global wikimedia policy that is known to contradict policies on a few mid-sized wikis, and then instantly implementing the result.
[Peter: would you have considered a mention on this list notice? on wikitech? on hu:wp?]
SJ