[WikiEN-l] Arbcom mailing lists need shredded

[doc]

Two issues have recently brought the questions of the arbcom mailing 
lists to light. 1) The rather vile thread on the RfArb talk - with its 
allegations that named individuals have leaked  - allegations that by 
their nature can neither be substantiated or repudiated. 2) The 'Giano 
question' - a very legitimate question of whether if Giano were on 
arbcom he'd read posts about himself in the arbcom archives - and what 
he'd to with such information. To his credit, Giano's answers showed 
great integrity. But this raises the question: if there are posts about 
Giano in there, why shouldn't he be able to read them? And for that 
matter, if there are posts about me, why shouldn't I?

Strip away the personalities and the bad blood and deeper issues remain.
1) Secrecy breeds paranoia and distrust - and the antidote is always 
more transparency.
2) Whilst there's a legitimate debate as to whether too many people have 
access to the lists - we're missing a bigger question of access to the 
archives. Even if access is restricted to current arbs, that will mean 
that anything posted now can be read by dozens of people over the next 
few years - some of whom *will* be indiscreet. We here talk of  archives 
used as "institutional memory" - but knowledge is also power.
3) In most bureaucracies today, individuals have the right to see any 
records pertaining to themselves. That right allows the correction of 
error - but also focuses the minds of those who would make personal 
comments about individuals in backrooms. Comments that may prejudice 
minds for years to come.
4) Arbcom certainly has a need to share "privileged" information - 
checkuser details and other privacy matters - and that flow of 
information needs to be restricted.  Arbcom also has a need for internal 
deliberation without the background noise of open mailing lists, 
however, this type of discussion has no real need to be private.

I suggest the following:

A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable mix of necessarily 
confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be 
sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee  
confidentiality - it should be deleted.  It is unacceptable that there 
may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject 
cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can  be (will be, and has 
been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive 
retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an 
expectation of confidentiality.

B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list for discussing 
cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through 
moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive. 
This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs 
really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or 
private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years 
from now.

C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But it should only be 
used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly 
neccessary commentary.  Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight 
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a 
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed 
to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely - 
perhaps  12-24 months only.

The current situation is untenable, unfair, and destroying the 
community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to 
defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses 
the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.

Doc