The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
Clarification query: Does this apply to the unblock-en-l volunteer staff as well?
Thank you.
I don't think so. We do not have access to non-public data. There are messages posted everywhere that this is just a mailing list and that they should not share any private information.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:21 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List; Requests from blocked users Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public datapassed
On 4/30/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
Clarification query: Does this apply to the unblock-en-l volunteer staff as well?
Thank you.
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again?
How to prove their identity?
2007/5/1, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again?
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
shi zhao schreef:
How to prove their identity?
Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible? No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
Walter Vermeir wrote:
shi zhao schreef:
How to prove their identity?
Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible? No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
can i? ... ... ... lol :)
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
=alnokta
On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
Fairly obviously, this isn't going to be forgery proof. Its power would be as an arse-covering measure in case a volunteer with private info turns evil or crazy. That is, the Foundation has the identity info supplied by the volunteer, and if they lied then the volunteer is the liar.
- d.
In the United States commonly a notary public is used to certify the identity of a person signing forms and supplying identification. So that might be an option for some people. Otherwise just having them provide ID and sign a form stating it is valid provides a measure of protection for the organization.
Sydney aka FloNight
On 5/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
Fairly obviously, this isn't going to be forgery proof. Its power would be as an arse-covering measure in case a volunteer with private info turns evil or crazy. That is, the Foundation has the identity info supplied by the volunteer, and if they lied then the volunteer is the liar.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
And it helps keep honest people honest. People that are truly up to no good will find a way to beat even the most security minded systems.
Sydney
On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> > and if they lied then the volunteer is > the liar. > > > ...and thus the foundation cannot be held responsible...
Ah, so that (resolution) is for the legal issues?
$alnokta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 01/05/07, FloNight sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
And it helps keep honest people honest.
That's a really awful reason that makes no sense. It's like keeping tall people tall.
- d.
I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be available in every country.
On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
shi zhao schreef:
How to prove their identity?
Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible? No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
can i? ... ... ... lol :)
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
=alnokta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
afaik Shi is a He ;-)
On 5/1/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be available in every country.
On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
shi zhao schreef:
How to prove their identity?
Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible? No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change
of
address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
can i? ... ... ... lol :)
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
=alnokta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thank you. Actually She was just a typo for Shi. ;-(
On 5/1/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
afaik Shi is a He ;-)
On 5/1/07, teun spaans teun.spaans@gmail.com wrote:
I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be available in every country.
On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
shi zhao schreef:
How to prove their identity?
Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is
impossible?
No identity cards, no national database of birth registration,
change
of
address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like
that.
can i? ... ... ... lol :)
Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he isn't forging it somehow...
=alnokta
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something illegal such as a forged identity?
best, oscar
On 5/1/07, shi zhao shizhao@gmail.com wrote:
How to prove their identity?
2007/5/1, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt
to
contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again?
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/1/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something illegal such as a forged identity?
I would like to point out Ryan Jordan didn't stop to claim his fake identification after he got some positions of trust including a global one (boardvote access). So your argument sounds me a bit unwise. But forging an identity which looks as if the goverment issues is not a same thing, hopefully.
best, oscar
On 5/1/07, shi zhao shizhao@gmail.com wrote:
How to prove their identity?
2007/5/1, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On 5/1/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt
to
contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
Before Cary gets inundated, what should we be supplying? Scans of drivers licenses and the like? Fax of birth certs to the WMF office?
/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again?
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
oscar van dillen wrote:
you mean, while we evidently trust them to use the tools as trusted members of our community, we still cannot not trust them to *not* send in something illegal such as a forged identity?
I'm just responding to the question as I interpreted it..no more no less... but in my opinion..we should always assume good faith...that those spending this *crazy* time on the projects have nice reason and want to make it better...and after all..what harm could anyone do that is not revertible?
<snip>
)alnokta
Aphaia wrote:
/me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they would like us to send them it again?
/we is looking...
Cary
Hoi, Does this mean that developers have to identify themselves as well and have to be so mature that they are proven legally adult ?
I hope the WMF will consider this not a position of trust in accordance with this resolution.. If it is not, I think it I am sure that it is collateral damage.
Thanks, GerardM
On 5/1/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Does this mean that developers have to identify themselves as well and have to be so mature that they are proven legally adult ?
I hope the WMF will consider this not a position of trust in accordance with this resolution.. If it is not, I think it I am sure that it is collateral damage.
Developers do not have access to private information, however people with access to our servers do. That's one of the reasons why we do not give out shell access to people under 18.
Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue with).
Despite this, looking at the issue again and after having discussed it with
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:
... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group registration process, but we are getting round this by using a Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still places a degree of liability upon minors.
Simply: I think that there must be a way to get round this to help both WMF and its younger volunteers, but that in general the resolution is a good idea - we need *something* covering this hole, so to speak, before an accident happens.
Thanks, Sean
On 01/05/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue with).
Despite this, looking at the issue again and after having discussed it with
On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
To read the details of the resolution, please see: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions.
Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF volunteer coordinator, at cbass@wikimedia.org. We will also attempt to contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however, please spread this message to those in your communities.
For the Wikimedia Foundation, Kat Walsh
-- Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- —Sean Whitton (seanw) sean@silentflame.com http://seanwhitton.com/
On 5/2/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:
... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group registration process, but we are getting round this by using a Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still places a degree of liability upon minors.
Yes but not a total degree. I feel need to add that both parents and minors can cancel the deed of minors if the parents give no explicit consent retrospective, even after the minor reached adulthood. It would be an idea to ask their parents a consent in a paper, but I don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition to all confirmation process of other people.
I believe that such a paper opinion from the parent would be legally bounding if we worded it right.
don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition to all confirmation process of other people.
There aren't *that* many of us working in these areas - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it'd be a great deal extra :)
Thanks, Sean
On 02/05/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:
... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group registration process, but we are getting round this by using a Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still places a degree of liability upon minors.
Yes but not a total degree. I feel need to add that both parents and minors can cancel the deed of minors if the parents give no explicit consent retrospective, even after the minor reached adulthood. It would be an idea to ask their parents a consent in a paper, but I don't know if WMF can handle enourmous paperwork currently in addition to all confirmation process of other people.
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
- habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
<snip> "Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be off-limit?
=alnokta
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
<snip> "Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be off-limit?
=alnokta
Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a position, it is that he did not come to vote).
You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with the resolution").
It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed. To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this resolution over a year ago: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Consent_Procedures
Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the resolutions to check and correct this.
Ant
On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the resolutions to check and correct this.
Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively refused to cast a vote in the ballot. Merely failing to vote due to being absent or unavailable is not an abstension. There is a significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have confused some readers in the thread.
It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six members in favor, one member not voting".
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote: your use of the incorrect term may have
confused some readers in the thread.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Access_to_nonpub...
It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six members in favor, one member not voting".
Kelly
correct
On 5/1/07, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively refused to cast a vote in the ballot. Merely failing to vote due to being absent or unavailable is not an abstension. There is a significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have confused some readers in the thread.
The UK english commons use is somewhat different however which is why Frank Maguire was said to have abstained in person. So using the word "abstain" to mean "abstain in person" would risk confusing UK readers.
Really there is no ideal wording.
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight. That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway. My first and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private. I believe everyone in these positions should have that option.
I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go this route, but I disagree with it strongly. There are many reasons to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign. Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to lie can do so anyway. This just pushes good, but nervous, people out of these roles. Roles where good people are desperately needed.
I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change, although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
Regards,
-- sannse
(and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether I can be trusted. Your choice either way.)
Hoi, The way I read the resolution is that the WMF will know who you are, somewhere in a safe or something. This means that only when there is a requirement to get into contact with you on a named basis you will be addressed in this way. This should also be the extend to which someone needs to be identified by his / her name. Thanks, GerardM
On 5/1/07, sannse sannse@gmail.com wrote:
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight. That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway. My first and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private. I believe everyone in these positions should have that option.
I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go this route, but I disagree with it strongly. There are many reasons to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign. Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to lie can do so anyway. This just pushes good, but nervous, people out of these roles. Roles where good people are desperately needed.
I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change, although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
Regards,
-- sannse
(and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether I can be trusted. Your choice either way.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight. That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway. My first and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private. I believe everyone in these positions should have that option.
You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess). What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.
You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess). What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.
One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong). And a private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be accidentally open to all to view. And that's with me being "paranoid".
And as just one example of a reason: I am open on-line about being a gay woman. I'm not quite that open in the 3D world. For me my real name being linked with "sannse" would be a mild embarrassment that may damage my relationship with a few aunts and uncles. For some a revelation like that could be /very/ dangerous in many ways. That's just one reason off the top of my head.
But really, that's not the point for me... my name is none of your damn business. It's no harm if you go rummaging though my underwear drawer, but I'm not going to allow that either.
-- sannse
One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong). And a private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be accidentally open to all to view. And that's with me being "paranoid".
I hope the people responsible have been slapped repeatedly with a wet fish - they really do need to be more careful with private information. Revealing private information is one of the worst things a member of Wikimedia staff could do.
On 5/1/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight. That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway. My first and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private. I believe everyone in these positions should have that option.
You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess). What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.
Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of someone needing it kept secure.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of someone needing it kept secure.
- d.
This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such information.
ant
On 5/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of someone needing it kept secure.
Which reminds me to ask: if we have a duty to identify ourselves to the Foundation, what duties of confidentiality does the Foundation agree to hold itself to?
What happens if this information is leaked - accidentally, on purpose, through security breach or robbery or ... ?
Will the foundation fight a discovery motion or subpoena or the like asking for our personal information, or will it roll over and give up the information without a fight, in the hope a potential lawsuit will go after us rather than them? Will the Foundation even notify us in this case? I am concerned that harassing individuals, knowing the Foundation has this info on file, will file bogus lawsuits just to get their hands on it.
I'm also curious as to whether this changes our legal relationship with the Foundation in other ways.
Most of this does not personally concern me all that much since I've never made that much of an effort to keep my online identity private: I am no good at keeping secrets. But the implications may concern others more than I.
-Matt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sorry, can't let this go by unanswered. My statements are historical and have no bearing on what is presently being done, as I have nothing to do with the Foundation anymore. But:
1) Information obtained by the Foundation is subject to the privacy policy adopted by the board. Always.
2) What happens if...? I don't understand your question. If there is a security breach, etc., it's a big problem, like it would be for any company or organization.
3) Will the Foundation fight? That depends, but the clearest answer you will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can offer. Any other statement is hogwash. If your identity is so secret that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it. That is your decision, and no one elses. For example, I appreciate what sannse is saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition to the policy is misguided. People *do* already know who she is. The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay.
In practice, persons who are the object of investigation by a third party usually know someone is after them. The standard practice supported by EFF and other free speech organizations, and encouraged under Florida law, is to advise the individual of the subpoena to allow them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena and to seek to intervene to limit or supply conditions for the discovery. There is never a guarantee the information can *never* be turned over. Under most normal situations, however, it won't be.
4) Bogus suits are bogus suits, and run afoul of state and federal rules. In Florida, you don't get that discovery automatically.
5) What legal relationship do you think changes?
Brad Patrick
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of someone needing it kept secure.
Which reminds me to ask: if we have a duty to identify ourselves to the Foundation, what duties of confidentiality does the Foundation agree to hold itself to?
What happens if this information is leaked - accidentally, on purpose, through security breach or robbery or ... ?
Will the foundation fight a discovery motion or subpoena or the like asking for our personal information, or will it roll over and give up the information without a fight, in the hope a potential lawsuit will go after us rather than them? Will the Foundation even notify us in this case? I am concerned that harassing individuals, knowing the Foundation has this info on file, will file bogus lawsuits just to get their hands on it.
I'm also curious as to whether this changes our legal relationship with the Foundation in other ways.
Most of this does not personally concern me all that much since I've never made that much of an effort to keep my online identity private: I am no good at keeping secrets. But the implications may concern others more than I.
-Matt
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for your answers, Brad, and I appreciate that you can only speak for the situation before your leaving.
A lot of what I'm getting at, I guess, is wondering how seriously the privacy policy will be enforced and whether this information will be common knowledge in the office (and thus easily accidentally disclosed) or whether it will be checked by someone and then placed somewhere secure and not generally known by everyone who works in the office.
My concerns are also that security breaches may be swept under the carpet, and ignored or denied as the easier option.
Thank you for the clarification as to Florida law and the likely policy the Foundation would follow if they received a legal request for the information. While I realize that the Foundation may not be in the position of an iron-clad guarantee about anything, I would hope at least that the correct procedure to follow will be decided upon in advance and that the standard procedure include notifying the subject of any subpoena/investigation/discovery if that is possible.
I know under certain circumstances such a notification is prohibited and that the Foundation may not be able to contact someone, but my concern is that if what to do in that circumstance is not considered in advance, policy may be made up on-the-fly in a panic and my experience is that poor decisions are sometimes made in such circumstances.
As I said, my own identity is by no means considered a secret, though my real name is sufficiently frequent that it's not enough to obtain positive identification. I'm asking more out of a feeling that some of these things need to be raised in advance of problems.
Thanks,
-Matt
Another, maybe not *that* important, question might be: Will the foundation be willing to remove the information out of the records if the person resigns from the positions? Not that I care a very lot about it, but I am somehow curious anyway :)
Lodewijk
2007/5/1, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com:
Thanks for your answers, Brad, and I appreciate that you can only speak for the situation before your leaving.
A lot of what I'm getting at, I guess, is wondering how seriously the privacy policy will be enforced and whether this information will be common knowledge in the office (and thus easily accidentally disclosed) or whether it will be checked by someone and then placed somewhere secure and not generally known by everyone who works in the office.
My concerns are also that security breaches may be swept under the carpet, and ignored or denied as the easier option.
Thank you for the clarification as to Florida law and the likely policy the Foundation would follow if they received a legal request for the information. While I realize that the Foundation may not be in the position of an iron-clad guarantee about anything, I would hope at least that the correct procedure to follow will be decided upon in advance and that the standard procedure include notifying the subject of any subpoena/investigation/discovery if that is possible.
I know under certain circumstances such a notification is prohibited and that the Foundation may not be able to contact someone, but my concern is that if what to do in that circumstance is not considered in advance, policy may be made up on-the-fly in a panic and my experience is that poor decisions are sometimes made in such circumstances.
As I said, my own identity is by no means considered a secret, though my real name is sufficiently frequent that it's not enough to obtain positive identification. I'm asking more out of a feeling that some of these things need to be raised in advance of problems.
Thanks,
-Matt
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/1/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Another, maybe not *that* important, question might be: Will the foundation be willing to remove the information out of the records if the person resigns from the positions? Not that I care a very lot about it, but I am somehow curious anyway :)
While I can't speak for the foundation, I can't see why they would be willing. After all, they don't necessarily know if you've done anything wrong with your access until later.
-Matt
On 5/1/07, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
<snip> offer. Any other statement is hogwash. If your identity is so secret that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it. That is your decision, and no one elses. For example, I appreciate what sannse is saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition to the policy is misguided. People *do* already know who she is. The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay.
<snip>
While appreciating that Brad doesn't speak for the Foundation, and noting that I don't disagree with the proposed policy and am happy to provide my ID to the WMF, etc.... I do find this statement about someone that "no Foundation person has shaken hands with..." curious in light of the actual resolution.
There is, as SJ hints at, a big difference between being personally trustworthy -- online or off -- and having your identity confirmed. To take myself as an example: I've met in person, shaken hands with and spoken on the phone to many of the Foundation people; and I have a position of trust (OTRS) that comes under this resolution. In short: I hope I'm considered personally trustworthy, or at least personally known. That doesn't mean any of you necessarily know my exact age, or my middle name, or the fact that I really do have a California driver's license, or where I live, or that I really work at a university, or any of the other specific details that a positive ID could provide. Furthermore, if none of you had ever met or interacted with me, any number of government IDs couldn't confirm that I'm a trustworthy and competent person, that I'm not going to take all the personal information I've ever come in contact with and share it far and wide on teh interweb, etc. -- all they could confirm is those morally anonymous personal details.
It clearly takes some combination of the two -- positive ID and personal knowledge of someone's work -- to obtain what it seems like the policy is getting at, that is, knowing that volunteers with access to sensitive information must be both mature and over the age of consent, trustworthy and truthful in their identity, respectful of both Foundation policies and personal privacy rights, and possessed of good common and moral sense.
As I said, I'm all in favor of this goal. So far, volunteers for trusted positions have them mainly because other people think they're trustworthy from onwiki interactions. The resolution seems like it is filling in the gap of also getting a positive ID for people, so that as Kat says the Foundation can "ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions." It would be nice to clarify though if this in the only purpose or if there is a larger assumption being made about what these positive IDs will achieve.
cheers, phoebe
On 5/2/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
The resolution seems like it is filling in the gap of also getting a positive ID for people, so that as Kat says the Foundation can "ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for their own actions." It would be nice to clarify though if this in the only purpose or if there is a larger assumption being made about what these positive IDs will achieve.
That's basically it, as I understand it. It's about ensuring that volunteers in these positions are legally competent in their jurisdiction.
Brad Patrick wrote:
- Will the Foundation fight? That depends, but the clearest answer you
will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can offer. Any other statement is hogwash. If your identity is so secret that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it. That is your decision, and no one elses. For example, I appreciate what sannse is saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition to the policy is misguided. People *do* already know who she is. The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay.
Has anyone ever (and I do mean *ever*) seriously asserted that Essjay in any way abused oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS access? That seems to me a serious misrepresentation of what was essentially a PR mishap for the WMF. If your point is only that he was a pseudonymous user with access to confidential information, then your one word might as well have been "Dmcdevit," or dozens of people here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser#Current_users_with_access. But crying "Essjay" is sensationalizing the issue, and kicking the man while he's down for no discernible reason.
Dominic
On 02/05/07, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
- Will the Foundation fight? That depends, but the clearest answer you
will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can offer. Any other statement is hogwash. If your identity is so secret that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it. That is your decision, and no one elses. For example, I appreciate what sannse is saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition to the policy is misguided. People *do* already know who she is. The point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having the capacity to expose confidential information. One word: Essjay.
Has anyone ever (and I do mean *ever*) seriously asserted that Essjay in any way abused oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS access? That seems to me a serious misrepresentation of what was essentially a PR mishap for the WMF. If your point is only that he was a pseudonymous user with access to confidential information, then your one word might as well have been "Dmcdevit," or dozens of people here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser#Current_users_with_access. But crying "Essjay" is sensationalizing the issue, and kicking the man while he's down for no discernible reason.
Agreed. This is an allegation of malfeasance in use of the tools, and needs to be substantiated or withdrawn.
- d.
On 01/05/07, sannse sannse@gmail.com wrote:
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight. That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway. My first and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private. I believe everyone in these positions should have that option.
Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with that.
Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with that.
I'm sure it would. But I would not be satisfied with that. I oppose this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as everyone else, or to resign.
Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy in place.
-- sannse
On 5/1/07, sannse sannse@gmail.com wrote:
Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with that.
I'm sure it would. But I would not be satisfied with that. I oppose this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as everyone else, or to resign.
I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy. You say your name is none of our business. That's fine, but then my IP address is none of your business.
Anthony
On 5/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy. You say your name is none of our business. That's fine, but then my IP address is none of your business.
It's quite simple, I believe that privacy on-line is an important ideal (while being fully aware of the practical limitations of that). I believe anonymity should be an accepted choice, and should be no barrier to participation in the Foundation.
I have no interest in your IP address, and would consider it the hight of bad manners to try and find out what it was (unless of course it was needed to prevent you disrupting the project with vandalism or whatever)
-- sannse
Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons, but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes out better for all.
Giving any sort of power (even adminship) to somebody who the community does not know by name has always seemed wacky.
Have we gotten an answer about unblock-l volunteers? I create accounts, see passwords, locations, frequently names and phone numbers there. Seems like that should be verified somehow.
On 5/1/07, sannse sannse@gmail.com wrote:
Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with that.
I'm sure it would. But I would not be satisfied with that. I oppose this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as everyone else, or to resign.
Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy in place.
-- sannse
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/1/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons, but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes out better for all.
I gave one good reason someone might have earlier. As for my own reasons (other than the philosophical/ethical issue of privacy) it's quite simple. I have a distinctive name, I live in a small town, I do /not/ want phone calls about Wikimedia or Wikia in the middle of the night.
When I first decided to keep my name private, I was concerned about SOLLOG and the way he was harrasing various Wikipedians. Nowadays I'd be more worried about someone phoning me up to ask how to change the logo on their Wikia :-) but either way, I'd rather that didn't happen.
(Yes, I know I can get my number delisted. No, I don't wish to do that).
-- sannse
On Tue, 1 May 2007, sannse wrote:
I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change, although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
Regards,
-- sannse
(and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether I can be trusted. Your choice either way.)
This last comment is an important point. I also think that this is an unfortunate policy.
1) The utility of sharing real names, and being a certain age, is overstated. Require competence, maturity, and reputation; not the paper assurance of age and Real identity.
2) Just ask people to share their real name, don't twist their arm. They will tell you when they don't want to share, rather than fooling you.
3) If you really want to confirm that 'honest people are honest' and make community members jump through hoops, set that bar higher (leave out, for instance, basic OTRS access & checkuser)
SJ
Florence Devouard wrote:
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
<snip> "Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be off-limit?
Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a position, it is that he did not come to vote).
You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with the resolution").
It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed. To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this resolution over a year ago: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Consent_Procedures
Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the resolutions to check and correct this.
"Did not vote" would be ambiguous. The proper distinction should be between "abstain" and "absent". "Absent" in particular states that the person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he wanted to.
There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited above. "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word. Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited above. "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word. Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.
Ec
Uh ? When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can not" or "can't" ?
Is not that so ?
On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Uh ? When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can not" or "can't" ?
Is not that so ?
This is true for almost all auxiliary verbs in the negative. "cannot" is a special case though, of whch, thankfully, the English language has so few ;-)
sm
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited above. "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word. Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.
Ec
Uh ? When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can not" or "can't" ?
Is not that so ?
Don't believe everything that you learned in school. :-)
Perhaps grammatical "inaccuracy" would have been a better choice than "error".
In most cases "can not" and "cannot" are indeed interchangeable, and in most circumstances and spoken speech it doesn't matter. Both Fowler and the Oxford consider the two forms acceptable, with the one word form becoming more common.
Perhaps years of reading tax laws affects the way I read "legal" writing. I often ask myself whether there is a plausibly unexpected way of reading a passage. Thus with the clause in question "Modifications to the bylaws or articles of incorporation can (not be made) with consent resolutions." it reads differently with the parentheses put there to indicate a different emphasis. In French the distinction would be between "ne peut pas faire" and "peut ne pas faire".
In speech pauses are phonemic. Thus we have the title of the Lynn Truss book "Eats shoots and leaves" to distinguish it from "Eats, shoots and leaves" In that case a comma distingusishes the two readings which in spoken speech would be distinguished by a pause. Negative constructions are notorious for ambiguities. Consider the alternative clause: "[No] modifications to the bylaws or [to the] articles of incorporation [shall] ^ be made [by] consent resolution^. (Changes in brackets, omissions marked by carets) Such a phrasing may also avoid some of the ambiguities.
"Can't" is a contraction, and as such is not generally acceptable in formal writing, but it does have the benefit of being unambiguous in the contest we are considering.
English auxilliary verbs can present a big challenge since English is a more syntactic language. Sorry if this seems like a good language rant.
Ec
On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Did not vote" would be ambiguous. The proper distinction should be between "abstain" and "absent". "Absent" in particular states that the person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he wanted to.
That doesn't seem to be the case, though. From the description provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement. There was no "there" to be present or absent from.
Consent agreements usually have to be unanimous, but apparently Florida law allows for "majority consent agreements", a term which I just made up and has zero Google hits.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
"Did not vote" would be ambiguous. The proper distinction should be between "abstain" and "absent". "Absent" in particular states that the person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he wanted to.
That doesn't seem to be the case, though. From the description provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement. There was no "there" to be present or absent from.
"There" can be defined by the Foundation. Perhaps it can be wherever the secretary happens to be since it's normally the secretary that keeps track of the books and records of the company.
Ec
<snip>
Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a position, it is that he did not come to vote).
You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with the resolution").
ِAh, thanks :)
Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the resolutions to check and correct this.
So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))
Blank vote --> where s/he refused to take a position
I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to 'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...
Did not vote --> s/he don't know anything about the matter in question. not YES not NO..just isn't calculated.
&alnokta
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
<snip> > Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a > position, it is that he did not come to vote). > > You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should > not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with > other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with > the resolution"). > > ِAh, thanks :) > Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" > with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". > Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no > vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the > resolutions to check and correct this. > > So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))
Blank vote --> where s/he refused to take a position
I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to 'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...
Did not vote --> s/he don't know anything about the matter in question. not YES not NO..just isn't calculated.
&alnokta
Let me clarify. The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march. We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the resolution would be voted upon that day. Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat). Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself (unsufficient quorum for it to be passed). Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th. Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the resolution was passed on the 16th.
It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not.
When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing". I now realise that Erik is not using the same system... So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention somewhere the exact terminology and what it means.
In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed"
ant
<snip>
Let me clarify. The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march. We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the resolution would be voted upon that day. Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat). Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself (unsufficient quorum for it to be passed). Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th. Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the resolution was passed on the 16th.
It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not.
When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing". I now realise that Erik is not using the same system... So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention somewhere the exact terminology and what it means.
In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed"
ant
oh no, I was just generalizing and trying to understand each term for the future resolutions..I wasn't asking for more clarifications regarding this particular resolution ;) but thanks anyway :)
So now you will just agree on a unified layout...
*alnokta
Kat Walsh wrote:
In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside"
That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was wrote wrongly in the wiki.
@alnokta
On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside"
That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was wrote wrongly in the wiki.
No, the age at which you can legally make a binding decision independent of parental (etc) consent is indeed the age of majority. The age of consent relates to the the capacity of the individual to consent to sexual activity, and really doesn't factor in here much... I really don't see how that can be interpreted as "must be over the age of consent" unless you squint really hard.
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
In addition, all users holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside"
That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was wrote wrongly in the wiki.
No, the age at which you can legally make a binding decision independent of parental (etc) consent is indeed the age of majority. The age of consent relates to the the capacity of the individual to consent to sexual activity, and really doesn't factor in here much... I really don't see how that can be interpreted as "must be over the age of consent" unless you squint really hard.
;) pardon me then..sorry...
i guess i was in sort of a robot mode, find consent in the paragraph then its age of consent..
but wouldn't adding 'age of majority' to the resolution's text be clearer?
#alnokta
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org