I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF wikis that are interconnected but run independently.
When we discuss adding another volunteer committee or adding more responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper training and their staff support. If these committees are to function properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources.
I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group ( beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the Legal and Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally banning and locking accounts.
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional whose work is being evaluated.
Sydney Poore
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com:
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately responsible for everything WMF does.
Yes, I am aware of that. What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
Of course there are other possible solutions.
2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ faewik@gmail.com:
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.
The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or discussing the *merit* of such bans. The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal department and tollows from the projects' terms of use. This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that - indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided by the ToS.
With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts, with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.
Cristian
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