[Foundation-l] New draft of privacy policy

[Florence Devouard]

Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Your input is welcome. Please note that voting on this policy is planned
>> next week-end during the 21st of June board meeting. So, input is
>> welcome NOW.
> 
> While the draft is very good as a supporting explanatory essay, I
> don't think it's written as a policy; it's unnecessarily verbose,
> reads like an essay or opinion piece, makes incorrect assumptions
> (like "everyone can contribute", "history [...] is preserved
> indefinitely", or "you are encouraged but not required to register
> with your real name" (some wikis specifically discourage that due to
> stalking, etc)), significantly addresses non-privacy subjects (like
> community values, copyright, or user access hierarchy), and uses
> redundant section numbering (sections are numbered automatically in
> the table of contents). I think the explanatory material should be
> moved to a separate essay, so that the policy only contains policy.
> 
> I've drafted a rewritten policy that addresses these and other
> concerns (such as undue references to en-Wikipedia) at
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_Privacy_Policy_June_2008#Rewrite>.
> I'd also appreciate input on that rewritten draft.
> 

Hello Pathoschild,

I've dropped input on the rewritten draft.
My main concern with it is that it is rewritten in such a way that
* it only addresses privacy issue on the projects themselves (rather 
than on all activities related to the projects, eg, mailing lists, OTRS).
* it totally neglects issues related to special access users (in 
particular checkusers etc...)
* it also removes some new decisions recently made by the board (eg, 
notification of a user when private data has been released upon legal 
request)

I agree that the original document is a bit verbiose and could be 
simplified in some parts.
I also agree that part of it is "descriptive" rather than "policy". 
However, "simplification" should keep all the meat.

I wonder if it would not be possible to separate this document in two 
documents.
* One describing the philosophy and the data kept.
* The other being more policy oriented.

OR
Separating more clearly in the document, points related to "projects" 
and points related to other activities (mailing lists, irc, otrs etc...)

Ant