[Foundation-l] (volunteer) job position : Ombudsperson checkuser (or checkuser Ombudsperson or whatever)

[Anthere]

> On 6/21/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Methinks it's a quest to be ready in case it actually happens. To express it
>>as an irritating buzzword, "proactive."

Arnomane criticized
 > So data security is very important and it should be made clear to all
 > ckeckusers but creating yet another ombudsman creates IMHO more 
avoidable
 > meta-work (= work that does not improve a wikipedia article).
 > IMHO "CheckUser-abuse" is mainly an en.wikipedia problem and should be
 > adressed there locally in the main line.
 >
 > Arnomane

 >And Robert also questionned
 >If the abuse hasn't happened, where is the move to create such a
 >position in the first place?  A quest for political power?

-- Robert Scott Horning


Will that create more meta work ?
No. It will delegate meta work or move meta work to another person. I am 
currently doing the job.

Is it a quest for political power ?
No. Given that *I* suggested this position, I can clarify that I am not 
seeking more power.

Is it a quest to be ready in case it actually happens ?
It is not a quest. I sure hope abuse will *never* happen. But better to 
be ready when it actually happens. And better that I drop doing the job 
rather than doing it poorly.

Last point. I asked the board his opinion about the whole issue. Angela 
suggested that we could update the privacy policy, which was pretty old 
stuff since it did not take into account the checkuser tool ;-)
A new version was still pending. It is now adopted.


ant

> Also Anthere trying to offload work (currently she investigates all
> allegations of checkuser abuse herself).
> 
> Kelly