Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
1. what are OTRS' rules and policies? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public? All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta are stored on the OTRS wiki http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org. Why, if any rules or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
3. where are those rules and policies discussed and decided? If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta, they can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by ”decree" by WMF.
4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators. I believe OTRS falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T&S.
6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.
7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? I do not know the answer to this question.
8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? OTRS admins https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators.
10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen? I do not know the answer to this question.
Jonatan Svensson Glad Josve05a
Hello, This is the first time that I heard that the rules and policies of a volunteer body are confidential. As a CU and OS we don't have any confidential policy (confidential data, sure)
Can you elaborate more?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:52 PM Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
- where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public? All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta are stored on the OTRS wiki http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org. Why, if any rules or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta, they can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki < http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org%3E or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by ”decree" by WMF.
- what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or
reworded for clarity)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators%3E. I believe OTRS falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T&S.
- what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent?
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.
- what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS
permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? I do not know the answer to this question.
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
permissions? OTRS admins https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators.
- how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
I do not know the answer to this question.
Jonatan Svensson Glad Josve05a _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
OTRS has always seemed modeled after our wikis; self-selecting, self-perpetuating, self-governing... Often inconsistent, and always opaque to outsiders. There was a time when this was regarded as a feature. As other functions have become more transparent and accountable, OTRS has kept a low profile.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:42 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, This is the first time that I heard that the rules and policies of a volunteer body are confidential. As a CU and OS we don't have any confidential policy (confidential data, sure)
Can you elaborate more?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:52 PM Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
- where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public? All rules and policies not stored on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.)
or
Meta are stored on the OTRS wiki http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org. Why, if any rules or policies posted on OTRS wiki, are not public, I’m unable
to
answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- where are those rules and policies discussed and decided?
If not discussed publicly on a local wiki (Commons, enwp, etc.) or Meta, they can be discussed on e.g. the Café on the OTRS wiki < http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org%3E or on the mailing list. Or, I guess, by ”decree" by WMF.
- what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or
reworded for clarity)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
OTRS has 9 ”OTRS admins” < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators%3E. I believe
OTRS
falls under the Communications committee’s purview, and perhaps T&S.
- what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS
agent?
Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Volunteering.
- what is the process for the community to remove an individual’s OTRS
permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? I do not know the answer to this question.
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
- which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their
permissions? OTRS admins https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#OTRS_administrators.
- how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
I do not know the answer to this question.
Jonatan Svensson Glad Josve05a _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com napisał(a):
Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis. WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity - and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related to OTRS.
All points has been raised here are valid points. We should raise a discussion on wiki (maybe OTRS talk or Wikimedia Forum). As Amir said all CU and OS policies are available locally, then why OTRS policies should not be there.
Regards, ZI Jony
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 12:47 PM Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com napisał(a):
Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis. WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity - and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related to OTRS.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I agree with Tomek here.
And let me emphasize that not all OTRS admins have access to all queues: in fact, I think only the admins do. OTRS is a very fast system with queues per project and again per language, and access is given per queue. A queue is mostly created per Wikimedia project and language, except for the subject-related queue like WLX which is just for the competitions, and maybe chapters and WMF. Most of us only have access to a few queues, if more then one. But this access comes with knowledge, so if you are concerned about a person's knowledge on the subject of the emails they are handling, just reach out to one of the OTRS admins and express your concerns.
Vriendelijke groet, Ciell
Op di 7 jul. 2020 om 08:47 schreef Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com:
pon., 6 lip 2020 o 19:52 Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com napisał(a):
Some quick non-answer (better knows as !answers):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45 Any and all information on the OTRS wiki is private. OTRS wiki is used as a private workspace restricted to Wikimedia Foundation staff, chapter representatives, and Volunteer Response Team members, and is is strictly confidential.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories... Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals - as OTRS volunteers generally should simply follow local wiki policies when answering questions, and in case of permission cases - general copyright policies of Commons and local wikis. WIth copyright policies on Commons - there is a problem of its complexity - and there are cases when there is no easy answer. Anyway - copyright related decisions of OTRS volunteers on Commons are screened from time to time by Commons admins having access to OTRS.
Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related to OTRS.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
Actually, as far as I understand my role as an OTRS volunteer - there are no any special rules for OTRS except some technical, civility aspects and confidentiality of mailing with individuals
No special rules, apart from [list of special rules]?
Regarding privacy issues - OTRS volunteers can be reported to the Ombudsman Commission and during my serving in this Commision there were cases related to OTRS.
Indeed - but I'm not asking about just privacy issues.
czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk napisał(a):
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
What evidence? Again - OTRS wiki contains mainly technical stuff - such as some basic advices how to answer properly to e-mails, how to avoid typical mistakes, boilerplates for typical, redundant questions + some discussions about technical boundaries of what could be accept and what not regarding copyright agreements (for example how to be sure that agreement comes from person who can really sing it) and when and how to add OTRS copyright templates. This is made not public - first of all as discussions about disputable cases contain quite often personal details, and there are some "tricks" how to recognize fraudulent agreements, which if made public, could have made life easier for potential impositors.
General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are made public in most wikis, and that are real rules that are followed by OTRS agents responsible for permission queues. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission
or
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomoc:Pozwolenia_na_wykorzystanie
and most complicated - on Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 10:05, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk napisał(a):
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
What evidence?
* OTRS policies, stored on the OTRS wiki, are not public
* The questions asked in February have still not been answered
* A post from Jonatan to this list, saying "I'm unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign."
General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are made public in most wikis
Again; that is not what is being asked.
Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful. I would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be available on meta. If that is not the case, that is more likely due to laziness and/or lack of time than by design - so if you know of policies where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for objections to publish it, and lets rectify. I agree with Tomek that your line of answering with non-answers bring up conspiracies.
Andy: I'm sorry that you're unhappy about your experiences with OTRS. It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions queues. I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for (although I get the gist). If you're talking about policies related to how permissions are handled (what threshold are we using, what level of scrutiny, etc), I would say that in the end, that is up to the Commons (or alternative receiving) community. If you're talking behavior, I'm indeed not sure if we have much 'policy' other than some guidelines and common sense.
From the page it looks like there were multiple people willing to help pull
together the relevant pages and documentation. But you're right that this is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you expected much different.
All in all, I'm afraid there are no hard black-and-white answers that people can give you to these questions, because the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this. I know that is not satisfactory, but there is little use in pretending it's any different.
Now I should note that I'm not super active on OTRS, and especially not on the permissions queues - so it may well be that I have overlooked something super obvious. But I would be highly surprised.
Best, Lodewijk
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 5:26 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 10:05, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
czw., 9 lip 2020 o 18:53 Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk napisał(a):
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:46, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all
OTRS
agents sign.
Well, please do not create conspiracy theories...
It's not a conspiracy theory if there is evidence of a conspiracy.
What evidence?
OTRS policies, stored on the OTRS wiki, are not public
The questions asked in February have still not been answered
A post from Jonatan to this list, saying "I'm unable to answer this
due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign."
General copyright rules, procedures and copyright agreement templates are made public in most wikis
Again; that is not what is being asked.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 00:09, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful.
Do you mean to suggest that the current level of secrecy is necessary?
I would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be available on meta.
Apparently they are not, they are on a closed wiki; and so secret.
If that is not the case, that is more likely due to laziness and/or lack of time than by design
I have been asking for them since February.
so if you know of policies where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for objections to publish it, and lets rectify.
We were told the matter had been raised on the private OTRS mailing list, in February, and that "several of us [on the mailing list] want to be involved in any follow up". Nonetheless, no response from that discussion has been forthcoming, and neither the editor who said they had raised it in the mailing list, nor the one who I quote here, has responded to requests for updates.
It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions queues.
No; although this originally came to light due to a misapplication of the policy in relation to Commons, the questions apply to OTRS across the movement
I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for
All of them. Every single word of OTRS policy, guideline and boilerplate, that is not of necessity confidential due to containing personal information.
is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you expected much different.
I expected transparency of the standard common throughout the rest of our movement.
the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this.
I very strongly disagree. But if we /cannot/ give any answer to questions like "what are OTRS' rules and policies?" or "how is OTRS overseen, and who by?", then that would highlight even more serious issues.
More generally, I note that the discussion on Commons continues:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Redux%2C_June_20...
albeit with more heat that light, and that accusations about my motives are now being flung about. Still the questions have not been answered. Although we have been told, in the last hour or so "we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does [sic]".
I believe there's an important point about OTRS to discuss, but the present framing -- rooted in a challenging examination of the issue's history -- is making it difficult to get at.
OTRS agents, both individually and as part of a collective, have a tremendous influence over the perception of Wikipedia and Wikimedia by those with whom they interact. They interact not only with a large *number* of individuals, but also with some highly *influential* individuals (i.e., people deemed notable enough to be covered in our projects, or to serve as official photographers of those individuals, etc.)
WIth great power comes great responsibility. So as I see it, this is a situation in which clearly articulated policies, accompanied by clear processes to permit influence of those policies, and commentary on the implementation of those policies, would be ideal. We would be better off if there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS, and if OTRS were more accessible for comment by individual Wikimedians, and had good internal processes for handling those comments.
On that much, I think Andy would agree with me; but beyond that point, I think we diverge. I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the absence of those things, and given the history of OTRS, as described by others in this thread, I'm not sure that's a reasonable objective.
But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish policies and procedures going forward.
For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but, precisely because of the absence of policies, I reduced my activity to essentially nothing, and I was eventually dropped from the team. (As a paid Wikipedia trainer/consultant, I had opportunities to offer professional services to those seeking OTRS assistance. This is not something I ever did, but I felt that even the perception that I might be doing so would have been harmful to Wikimedia and to OTRS. Since there were no ethical policies offering guidance for somebody like me, the safest course of action was to pull away.)
-Pete -- User:Peteforsyth
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:36 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 00:09, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Jonatan: Implying that there's more secrecy than necessary, is unhelpful.
Do you mean to suggest that the current level of secrecy is necessary?
I would dare say that if the policies that Andy is looking for exist (given his inquiry he's looking for a specific set), they should and would be available on meta.
Apparently they are not, they are on a closed wiki; and so secret.
If that is not the case, that is more likely due to laziness and/or lack of time than by design
I have been asking for them since February.
so if you know of policies where that is not the case, please bring it up internally, ask for objections to publish it, and lets rectify.
We were told the matter had been raised on the private OTRS mailing list, in February, and that "several of us [on the mailing list] want to be involved in any follow up". Nonetheless, no response from that discussion has been forthcoming, and neither the editor who said they had raised it in the mailing list, nor the one who I quote here, has responded to requests for updates.
It seems that you're particularly concerned about the Commons/Permissions queues.
No; although this originally came to light due to a misapplication of the policy in relation to Commons, the questions apply to OTRS across the movement
I'm not exactly clear on what policies you're looking for
All of them. Every single word of OTRS policy, guideline and boilerplate, that is not of necessity confidential due to containing personal information.
is a bit of a mess - much of OTRS has grown organically. I doubt you expected much different.
I expected transparency of the standard common throughout the rest of our movement.
the questions are too broadly formulated for a diffuse system like this.
I very strongly disagree. But if we /cannot/ give any answer to questions like "what are OTRS' rules and policies?" or "how is OTRS overseen, and who by?", then that would highlight even more serious issues.
More generally, I note that the discussion on Commons continues:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Redux%2C_June_20...
albeit with more heat that light, and that accusations about my motives are now being flung about. Still the questions have not been answered. Although we have been told, in the last hour or so "we do not have a process where we monitor what other OTRS volunteers does [sic]".
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
We would be better off if there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
Indeed.
I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the absence of those things
You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to me motives or intentions that are not mine.
I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what purpose it is supposed to achieve.
Please do not do so.
But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish policies and procedures going forward.
This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting within them.
For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but, precisely because of the absence of policies
This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a non-public wiki.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
We would be better off if there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
Indeed.
Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion.
I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the absence of those things
You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to me motives or intentions that are not mine.
I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what purpose it is supposed to achieve.
Please do not do so.
My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly.
But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish policies and procedures going forward.
This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting within them.
I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think) everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process.
For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but,
precisely
because of the absence of policies
This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a non-public wiki.
Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as well, which made internal discussion there challenging too.
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
This is a brava step to the end of the whole wikipedia project. More and more mystery less and less truthfulness more and more disillusioned editor.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 6:20 PM Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
We would be better off if there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS
Indeed.
Glad we agree on this central point! I think if we can stick to mapping out a path that would get us to this, we can have. aproductive discussion.
I think Andy wants to hold somebody responsible for the absence of those things
You are mistaken; and I have complained previously in this thread and in the on-wiki discussion about other people attempting to ascribe to me motives or intentions that are not mine.
I am unsure why this happens, why people are so bad at it, or what purpose it is supposed to achieve.
Please do not do so.
My apologies. I will be more careful about it going forward. Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly.
But I would very much support an effort to draft, review, and publish policies and procedures going forward.
This is the wrong order; we /first/ need OTRS (or whoever oversees OTRS, though five months after asking, we still don't know who that is, if anyone) to publish its existing policies etc; then we can review them; then we can, if necessary, draft and propose changes or additions. And report any instances where OTRS agents are not acting within them.
I don't disagree -- the order you describe would be optimal. But it's not in your control, it's not in my control, and I haven't seen anybody who has access to that information commit to taking the first steps. So, it seems worthwhile to discuss alternate ways to get to a goal that (I think) everybody would support. Even if they're a little messy or less than optimal. To me, the outcome is far more important than a perfect process.
For what it's worth, I was an OTRS agent for several years; but,
precisely
because of the absence of policies
This was presumably historical, because we have been told that there are (now) polices, but they are (partly, perhaps mostly) on a non-public wiki.
Let me clarify -- I didn't say there were no policies at all, but that the absence of certain policies made it specifically challenging for me. If memory serves, there were a few policy pages on the OTRS wiki, but not as much detail as I would have liked to see, and there were transparency and trust issues within the OTRS world (between agents and OTRS admins) as well, which made internal discussion there challenging too.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly.
Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
1. what are OTRS' rules and policies? 2. where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not public? 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in it, when you replied:
Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies)
shortly after I posted it.
Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that are reliably adhered to.
It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly.
Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
- where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public? 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in it, when you replied:
Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies)
shortly after I posted it.
Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful anyway. This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the first place. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pete Forsyth Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that are reliably adhered to.
It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this point more clearly.
Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27 February:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
- where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public? 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS agent? 7. what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in it, when you replied:
Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies)
shortly after I posted it.
Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We're dealing with a diverse community here, and at the same time people often want to imply information without making it explicit. I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed, where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter. This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all kind of secrecy that doesn't exist. There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies). There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing that exciting. There is plenty of other 'stuff' on that wiki - which may or may not have to be confidential. I wouldn't be against someone combing through that and looking what can be published - at their own peril. The point is, nobody seems willing or able to do that. These pages have accumulated over the years, and it's simply not going to help anyone to triplicate that effort. I'm not fundamentally against it, I just don't think it's a good use of time and energy. I for sure ain't gonna do that, even if you paid me for it.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try to analyze that with overly broad questions. I suspect you could spend a few years worth of research on understanding it. That is why I tried to get at the bottom of what Andy actually wants, so that I can try to help with that. Given that Andy seems unwilling to make the questions narrower (my interpretation) - that ends this conversation on my side, as I have little more to contribute.
Lodewijk
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:25 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Seems to me that if someone does not specify a motivation, we leave it as that - no motivation. It you want to know what it is, you ask. You may get an answer, but sometimes it is not particularly relevant, as the question may be worth asking for whatever reason because the answer could be useful anyway. This strikes me as one of those questions. I would be interested to know the answers, because they would be illuminating and useful. It does not really matter to me what Andy was thinking about at the time other than wanting an answer to a reasonable, neutrally expressed question about something I considered should be freely available somewhere in the system. What was surprising is how long it has taken to get what little information has been forthcoming, but that has little bearing on why the question was asked in the first place. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pete Forsyth Sent: 17 July 2020 23:17 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
Andy, I agree with you on the substance -- that we should get to a place where there are clearly articulated policies, with widespread buy-in, that are reliably adhered to.
It's the interpersonal stuff that I feel is distracting in a public discussion. If you feel it's worthwhile to talk that stuff through, I'd be happy to do so offlist. But I won't discuss it further on this list, which amounts to asking our colleagues in the Wikimedia world to endure something they don't need to. I've already told you I regret my mistaken remark about your intentions, so if you like, we could leave it at that.
Anyway, for the list -- what would you propose as a next step that you or I could take, without relying on anybody else in the short term? Can you think of anything? Or does that strike you as completely impossible? I am rather skeptical that this particular 20-post thread has moved any hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?)
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
Since it seems that multiple people are misunderstanding you on this point, I wonder whether there's anything you could do to express your views on this
point
more clearly.
Here is the entire post I made to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on 27
February:
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
We need answers to the following questions (some asked, but not answered, above, some arising from that discussion):
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
- where are those rules and policies documented, and why are they not
public? 3. where are those rules and polices discussed and decided? 4. what is the process for getting those rules and policies changed (or reworded for clarity)? 5. how is OTRS overseen, and who by? 6. what is the approval process for an individual to become an OTRS
agent?
- what is the process for the community to remove an individual's
OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy? 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? 9. which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions? 10. how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
Clearly, the equivalent for these exists on Commons, and our sister projects. OTRS agents can not expect to act without equivalent levels of transparency and accountability, even if individual transactions are confidential.
#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#~#
Please tell me which parts of it could be more clear, and how.
You certainly did not seem to be concerned about a lack of clarity in it, when you replied:
Excellent list, Andy. I concur... I think it would be very much in the interests of OTRS agents and the Wikimedia movement overall to address this list of questions in a forthright way, and make some adjustments (such as publishing policies and a process for amending policies)
shortly after I posted it.
Or did you have some other unclear post in mind?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an opportunity to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is on the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to try to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said, especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency, that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try to explain that.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
nothing
that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Could even be that no-one has gotten around to writing any policies and guidance, and everyone is just winging it with very little oversight. How could we know? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dennis During Sent: 20 July 2020 00:15 To: effeietsanders@gmail.com; Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
I think he's looking for openness. That doesn't require one to psychoanalyze him; just a straightforward reading of what he has said, especially in the context of wikidom. If there is some reason why OTRS isn't important enough to merit policies, supervision, and transparency, that should be easy to explain. If there is some other reason why we shouldn't trouble our little heads about it, it should be possible to try to explain that.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 18:01 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
nothing
that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
ok if it helps, here are some of them 1. are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, mail about copyright etc2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it regularly done?3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling? I think it's enough for now.
Alex Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy' assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way Andy would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies all kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho nothing that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Full disclosure I am an OTRS agent, I am not speaking on behalf of OTRS I referencing only public information, or personal experiences
This page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS answers some the questions including a list of OTRS administrators , the last update to that page which was marked for translation one can presume its been reviewed at that stage as correct was 12 March 2020
For a full list of OTRS agents https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Users , though it doesn't say what queues individual agents have access to.
There is a page for the policy on accessing OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Access_policy
There is an activity test, agents who have not answered any tickets for 6 months can have their access removed see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/Activity_policy
The OTRSwiki has guides on how to answer almost every type of email that is received, and when to defer emails to other queues. There are pre-prepared answers available to the agents when answering, they can modify those answers or write a fresh response themselves.
You can ask any OTRS agent to review a ticket, and you could always escalate it by contacting an OTRS admin if you had any specific concerns with the actions of OTRS agent including the way they dealt with a ticket.
Internally OTRS agents have options to seek help;
- can leave a note/comment on the ticket - can ask on the OTRSwiki for advice - can ask on the OTRS email list,
You can also choose to let someone else answer it, or forward it to another queue, to me common sense says if you dont know dont answer or seek out help beforehand . OTRS agents are responsible for any edits make to articles on the project. Anything that also needs an on project action must comply with the projects policies, including BLP, Notability, and verifiable citations to make changes. If its edit warring or bypassing a block then the person is referred back with links to the project dispute processes. I spent the first couple of weeks when I joined OTRS just watching tickets and following/participating in discussions before I started answering any tickets.
From what I've seen I dont think a public log is practicable
because sensitive information can be in the email header and email address may not be public, there is also a considerable amount of junk/spam/phishing emails that also come through the system. Every ticket gets a confirmation email back with the ticket number.
I hope this helps with answering the questions being raised.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 06:18, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
ok if it helps, here are some of them
- are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, mail about copyright etc2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it regularly done?3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator?5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?)6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling? I think it's enough for now.
Alex Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com> ha scritto:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
nothing
that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 05:04, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
This page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS answers some the questions including a list of OTRS administrators
I don't think it fully answers any of the ten questions discussed in this thread.
For example, while it has a list of OTRS administrators it does not - unlike say, the pages about amins on en.Wikipedia or Commons - say what the role of those admins is, or what limits are placed on their actions, It does not say who appoints them (or who can un-appoint them), or to what policies they must adhere. And it does not tell us who else might have access to the same or higher (c/f 'crats) levels of admin permissions that they have.
Thanks for your other comments.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl, permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently. If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level, I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I mentioned.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti alexmar983@yahoo.it wrote:
I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too generic for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
ok if it helps, here are some of them
- are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with instruction
with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, mail about copyright etc 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it regularly done? 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator? 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?) 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
I think it's enough for now.
Alex Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com> ha scritto:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that are simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
nothing
that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow their focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the underlying issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the trigger for his question was a case on Commons.
In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions - they just inform about rules, customs, help newbies with technical issues and sometimes try to help or solve the problem to satisfy both - a plaintiff and the local wiki rules. Basically this was the idea of OTRS when it was created - so the feeling was that strict rules for just answering the questions and helping newbies are not very much needed. Add to this that there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents - as this work tends to be boring, repetitive and not rewarding at all - so you may understand why entry barrier for agents is kept as low as possible. If you want to be an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians) and that's it... It really does not need any extra regulations, as it works as it is now.
However, for permission queues is the other issue - because acceptance or refusal of copyright agreement/claim is usually final, so it is quite a power, so I understand Andy's concern that there are no strict rules which are public. How it is practically screened has been already answered several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly - it was just developed naturally over time and consist of a) general copyright rules on Commons - which are already very complex and unclear - sometimes even contradictory with eachself and also they change over time, mainly in to direction to be more and more strict which is sometimes called "copyright paranoia" b) local copyright laws - which are also very complex and unclear in many jurisdictions and moreover one needs to know local language and local legal system to properly understand it and apply c) some practical customs, habits and technical rules related strictly to handling agreements via OTRS - the later is partially made public - I have already sent the links to the relevant pages but it was ignored - and partially made non-public.
So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules that may cover every possible case - as they tend to be sometimes very complex and individual. And the system will never be 100% transparent - as its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.
pon., 20 lip 2020 o 09:03 effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com napisał(a):
The problem I indicated is that 'OTRS' is a diffuse system of queues. There are very few policies that govern 'OTRS', and even practices will differ across queues. I'm for example a member of the teams that handle info-nl, permissions-nl and wlx. All those behave very differently. If you replace 'OTRS' with 'xyz queue on OTRS', someone from that queue may be able to give you a coherent answer. If you're asking at the OTRS-level, I don't think there's much policies/practices beyond the ones that I mentioned.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:17 PM Alessandro Marchetti alexmar983@yahoo.it wrote:
I am now quite confused. Are we supposed to ask very specific questions about OTRS hoping to get an answer because if the questions are too
generic
for sure we will never get a lot of answers? is that the general idea?
ok if it helps, here are some of them
- are OTRS policies categorized somehow? is there a page with
instruction
with how to handle mails from private companies, from people, mails of legal issues, mail about copyright etc 2. how are OTRS agents reviewed? is it a peer-review process? is it regularly done? 3. do we have a policy that impose a minimal constant activity on content-reòated platform to keep OTRS flag? 4. how can a normal user file a request to deflag another operator? 5. is there a open log of OTRS requests, some place where minimal information related to a ticket can be disclosed (for example the date of arrival and maybe if it is regarding some content or some other topic?) 6. is there a open log of OTRS operators, where we can see when they got the flag, a link to the request and how many queue they are handling?
I think it's enough for now.
Alex Il lunedì 20 luglio 2020, 00:01:56 CEST, effe iets anders < effeietsanders@gmail.com> ha scritto:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:55 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 09:03, effe iets anders <
effeietsanders@gmail.com
wrote:
I rather have that people make their assumptions explicit so that you have an
opportunity
to clarify, and use that as the basis for further conversation.
You seem to be assuming - wrongly - that I have made assumptions which I have not made explicit.
Ironically, you have not explicitly stated your assumption.
My reading of this discussion is that there is a lot of 'secrecy'
assumed
No secrecy is being assumed. Too much secrecy is being observed.
where it is probably more a lack of existence of policies in the way
Andy
would like them to exist. This is a known problem with OTRS.
It may well be that some policies that should exist, do not, or are ''de facto'' without being written down. But until we see a comprehensive list of those that do exist and are written, how can we know?
I feel comfortable sharing that the set of OTRS-wide 'policies' that
is
on
the wiki, is probably of little interest to this matter.
I am very interested in seeing all those 'policies'; as others have said they are.
As noted earlier in this thread, I do not see how I could be any more clear about my wish to see them.
This is why I noted that Jonatan's response could be misleading, because it implies
all
kind of secrecy that doesn't exist.
It stated, not implied, that "the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign" prevented him from answering some of the questions asked on-wiki in February, and quoted at the start of this thread.
There are actually a few policies linked at [[m:OTRS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS]], that
are
simply copied there (Access, Activity policies).
That page, and those linked from it, do not answer the questions to which I have already referred.
There is some stuff about privacy, confidentiality and how to deal with mailing lists. Imho
nothing
that exciting.
Perhaps not exciting to you; but I and others argue that such content should nonetheless be public. We have been told that OTRS agents are discussing the matter on their private email and IRC channels, but then... Nothing.
OTRS is an immensely diverse system, and I don't think it's helpful
to
try
to analyze that with overly broad questions.
I do not accept that questions such as, for example:
5 how is OTRS overseen, and who by?
7 what is the process for the community to remove an individual's OTRS permissions, if they fail to uphold or abide by policy?
9 which individuals can make someone an OTRS agent, or remove their permissions?
10 how are the individuals in #9 appointed and overseen?
are "overly broad"; but if you think they are, how would you narrow
their
focus?
First of all: you're framing my words and taking them out of context. I'm not going to waste further energy on that.
Answering that would require me to actually understand what the
underlying
issue is that you want to solve. I've given up on that.
Lodewijk
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
I guess - Andy's main concern is about permission queues on Commons, as the trigger for his question was a case on Commons.
I have already stated that this assumption is false, when someone else made it in this very thread.
In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions
But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed, and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.
Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how ORS operates across our movement.
And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of this thread mentones any specific case.
Add to this that there is a constant shortage of the active OTRS agents
Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the lack of transparency about how OTRS operates?
If you want to be an OTRS agent - just put your name on OTRS page on meta - ask some of your friends on your local wiki to endorse you and one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is OK (not too short and with no signs that you have a tendency to be in constant conflict with your fellow Wikipedians) and that's it... It really does not need any extra regulations, as it works as it is now.
You say "one of the OTRS admins simply checks if your edit history is OK...", but nowhere is that documented publicly as the process that is followed.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence also suggests that that is not all that there is to the process.
One of the other questions that remains unanswered is how the people who conduct this process are themselves appointed and overseen.
How it is practically screened has been already answered several times, but it is true that the process is not written down clearly
If it is not written down "clearly", show us what is written down in outline.
Why is this so difficult?
So, maybe - I say maybe - this system needs some sort of reform to make it more transparent and public - but do not expect that anyone can write rules that may cover every possible case
This is a straw man; no-one is asking for "rules that may cover every possible case"; and no one is asking for any new rules to be written; we are asking to see the rules and policies *that already exist*.
And the system will never be 100% transparent - as its idea is to answers E-mails under general WMF privacy policy umbrella.
...and no-one is asking to see anything that falls under the general WMF privacy policy umbrella; indeed, I have explicitly excluded such material when describing what I want to see.
Perfect encapsulation of what's gone wrong here in this debate. Andy makes some really solid points; OTRS is a black hole, has a history of being clubby, etc. That history has a lot of smudge marks on it going all the way back to wiki-en IRC channels and the overlap between IRC admins and OTRS admins and how it all fed into toxicity and secrecy.
The end goal - transparency in OTRS - is therefore a no brainer, but the strategy being deployed to make progress is ineffective.
Below is an example of why: Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both argumentative and inaccurate. Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.
This is a common dynamic on Wikipedia itself, and a big part of why people burnout and stuff doesn't get done. No one is inspired to collaborate from what reads as angry, argumentative accusations liberally applied to all participants.
Whether you agree with the ultimate objective or not, it's easier to just disengage.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 10:01, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
In fact - OTRS agents answering questions for general info queues have no special power - I mean they do not make any "secretive" decisions
But they do; and we know that they do. The specific case to which you refer above occurred when an OS agen declined to accept multiple in-scope photographs, from multiple correspondents, sent at the request of Wikidata editors, to OTRS by non-Wikimdians. This only came to light because the person who had organised the campaign noticed, and brought it to the attention of Wikidata editors, on Wikidata.
Nonetheless, that specific case led to general questions. about how ORS operates across our movement.
And note that not one of the ten questions I referred to at the top of this thread mentones any specific case.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both argumentative and inaccurate.
Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions queue.
For that, my apologies to Tomasz.
Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement. But it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.
I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that fickle.
The WMF has spent the last 4 years developing a strategy to take us to 2030 everything was on the table. OTRS is the one chink in that process that needs to address community concerns I'm all for improving every system we use.
I think it would be good if someone stepped up to hold some discussions and walk through on how the system works, and what we as agents deal with. It's best that the community is informed on the processes so that they can get an understanding and help address concerns being raised as well as collaborate on finding solutions where the system is falling over.
The starting point must be who, where within the WMF structures is there oversight of OTRS given its agents are speaking for the WMF as well.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 07:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 23:29, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Tomasz notes, correctly, that OTRS agents on *general info queues* (which he distinguished from permission queues) just answer questions, they don't exercise authority. Andy's reply is both argumentative and inaccurate.
Mea culpa. In the initial discussion on Wikidata, and in the discussion on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons, we were told, more than once, by OTRS agents, that the images had been sent to "OTRS photo-submissions". I assumed that a "photo-submissions" queue was a form of "general info queue", since it is distinct from a permissions queue.
For that, my apologies to Tomasz.
Tomasz could easily be on-side for genuine reform. He's an insider at OTRS who acknowledges room for improvement.
But
it wouldn't surprise me if this response converts him to an opponent.
I'd like to think I know Tomasz well enough - having met him several times, including being his guest in Warsaw - to know he's not that fickle.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 18:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com wrote:
- what are OTRS' rules and policies?
I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
So who is able to answer it?
I believe OTRS falls under the Communications committee’s purview,
There is nothing sayng so on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee
and perhaps T&S.
...nor on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trust_and_Safety
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad gladjonatan@outlook.com wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia?
I don't understand that question. The cited answer was received from info-en@wikimedia.org.
If not, Which ANI?
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].
Cheers, Aron
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Quite possible I am mistaken, but I thought OTRS was separate from WP, which would make en:wp:ANI irrelevant. Chreers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 10:55 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia?
I don't understand that question. The cited answer was received from info-en@wikimedia.org.
If not, Which ANI?
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].
Cheers, Aron
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is there an ANI for OTRS specifically? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 11 July 2020 10:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
Hoi, How can OTRS be part of Wikipedia, it is there for any and all projects. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad < gladjonatan@outlook.com> wrote:
- if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)? I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS agents sign.
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 11:05, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is there an ANI for OTRS specifically? Cheers, Peter
To clarify: the OTRS agent referred to ANI as the place where an issue should be resolved. Indeed it was not helpful, as the issue has already passed that stage. However, the part of the correspondence relevant to this discussion about the accountability of OTRS is the second part of the sentence: "hope you're not hit in the face with a boomerang."
I think it needs no explanation how inappropriate and hostile that sentence is. As OTRS is a primary point of contact, somewhat equivalent to customer service at for-profit companies, this kind of communication is not painting a healthy image of the movement.
Aron
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief
answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron
I still think that more transparency is possible here and there on this issue. Of course, we could have started a long process to get there by now but time is limited and precisely because we should provide a "healthy image of the movement" my goal so far has been to avoid using OTRS with third parties as much as possible. In other words, I have realized it's just easier to find ways to avoid OTRS. For example I prefer to encourage the presence of public copyright information when privacy is not an option and I point out that this is actually on the long term less time-consuming than dealing with the OTRS interface.
I hope that this will reduce the workload on the OTRS system ,so more people can try to improve it, it's the best compromise I could provide. I was asked to be a OTRS agent at a certain point, but I think I can be more productive at the moment creating such alternative pathways than entering the system. I wish all the best to those who want to do something. Alex Il mercoledì 22 luglio 2020, 14:16:04 CEST, Amaroon aronmanning5@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 11:05, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
That is what I thought, so referring someone to ANI is not helpful, or is there an ANI for OTRS specifically? Cheers, Peter
To clarify: the OTRS agent referred to ANI as the place where an issue should be resolved. Indeed it was not helpful, as the issue has already passed that stage. However, the part of the correspondence relevant to this discussion about the accountability of OTRS is the second part of the sentence: "hope you're not hit in the face with a boomerang."
I think it needs no explanation how inappropriate and hostile that sentence is. As OTRS is a primary point of contact, somewhat equivalent to customer service at for-profit companies, this kind of communication is not painting a healthy image of the movement.
Aron
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Context is necessary to understand this. If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aron Manning Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief
answer:
Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
boomerang*.
Yours sincerely, ...
The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't thought about contacting OTRS since then.
Aron
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org