hi Fae,
fair enough, but clearly the Board could decide to delegate the oversight privilege in these cases to community-elected members.
best,
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected by us*.
If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community. Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling members with a power of veto.
Fae
On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
transparency does not always have to mean full public access to
information
(in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
reasoning
behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
best,
Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. "pundit"
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe