WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
71 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

sannse-2
I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
in these positions should have that option.

I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go
this route, but I disagree with it strongly.  There are many reasons
to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign.
Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to
lie can do so anyway.  This just pushes good, but nervous, people out
of these roles.  Roles where good people are desperately needed.

I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.

Regards,

-- sannse

(and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether
I can be trusted.  Your choice either way.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by Mohamed Magdy-2
I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
available in every country.

On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > shi zhao schreef:
> >
> >> How to prove their identity?
> >>
> >
> > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
> > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change of
> > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
> >
> >
> can i?
> ...
> ...
> ...
> lol :)
>
> Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> isn't forging it somehow...
>
> =alnokta
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mohamed Magdy-2
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
<snip>
> Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a
> position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>
> You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should
> not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with
> other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with
> the resolution").
>
>  
ِAh, thanks :)
> Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain"
> with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain".
> Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no
> vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the
> resolutions to check and correct this.
>
>  
So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say
against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked
the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may
be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure
s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))

Blank vote -->  where s/he refused to take a position

I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to
'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get
counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...

Did not vote --> s/he don't know anything about the matter in question. not YES not NO..just isn't calculated.


&alnokta


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

oscar van dillen
In reply to this post by Teun Spaans
afaik Shi is a He ;-)

On 5/1/07, teun spaans <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
> available in every country.
>
> On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > > shi zhao schreef:
> > >
> > >> How to prove their identity?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is impossible?
> > > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration, change
> of
> > > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like that.
> > >
> > >
> > can i?
> > ...
> > ...
> > ...
> > lol :)
> >
> > Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> > whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> > isn't forging it somehow...
> >
> > =alnokta
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the
Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
Kelly Martin wrote:
your use of the incorrect term may have
> confused some readers in the thread.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data&action=history

> It would have been more appropriate to report the result as "six
> members in favor, one member not voting".
>
> Kelly

correct


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Sydney Poore
On 01/05/07, FloNight <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And it helps keep honest people honest.


That's a really awful reason that makes no sense. It's like keeping
tall people tall.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by sannse-2
Hoi,
The way I read the resolution is that the WMF will know who you are,
somewhere in a safe or something. This means that only when there is a
requirement to get into contact with you on a named basis you will be
addressed in this way. This should also be the extend to which someone needs
to be identified by his / her name.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 5/1/07, sannse <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.
>
> I fully understand why the board have felt that they have had to go
> this route, but I disagree with it strongly.  There are many reasons
> to keep full identities private, and the vast majority are benign.
> Keeping details private doesn't involve lying, and those that want to
> lie can do so anyway.  This just pushes good, but nervous, people out
> of these roles.  Roles where good people are desperately needed.
>
> I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
> although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- sannse
>
> (and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether
> I can be trusted.  Your choice either way.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

geni
In reply to this post by Kelly Martin-3
On 5/1/07, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Under US parliamentary law, an "abstension" is a deliberate refusal to
> vote: it means that the member is present in the chamber but actively
> refused to cast a vote in the ballot.  Merely failing to vote due to
> being absent or unavailable is not an abstension.  There is a
> significant distinction, and your use of the incorrect term may have
> confused some readers in the thread.

The UK english commons use is somewhat different however which is why
Frank Maguire was said to have abstained in person. So using the word
"abstain" to mean "abstain in person" would risk confusing UK readers.

Really there is no ideal wording.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by sannse-2
> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.

You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't
think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess).
What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to
know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Mohamed Magdy-2
Mohamed Magdy wrote:

> <snip>
>> Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a
>> position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>>
>> You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should
>> not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with
>> other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with
>> the resolution").
>>
>>  
> ِAh, thanks :)
>> Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain"
>> with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain".
>> Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no
>> vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the
>> resolutions to check and correct this.
>>
>>  
> So.. Abstain --> s/he didn't like the thing but didn't want to say
> against .. just stated that it isn't nice . or the opposite: s/he liked
> the thing but didn't want to say yes..just stated that it is nice (may
> be s/he didn't want to be blamed if something went wrong or aren't sure
> s/he wants to say yes but yet wanted to say what s/he is in favor of :))
>
> Blank vote -->  where s/he refused to take a position
>
> I'm confused here, if s/he cannot take a position how you then you go to
> 'did not vote' so that you aren't calculated .. imho..you won't get
> counted if you don't have an opinion either yes or no...
>
> Did not vote --> s/he don't know anything about the matter in question. not YES not NO..just isn't calculated.
>
>
> &alnokta

Let me clarify.
The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march.
We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the
agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the
resolution would be voted upon that day.
Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat).
Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself
(unsufficient quorum for it to be passed).
Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th.
Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the
resolution was passed on the 16th.

It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo
could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not.

When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something
like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing".
I now realise that Erik is not using the same system...
So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention
somewhere the exact terminology and what it means.

In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed"

ant


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

sannse-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
> You would only be giving the information to the foundation - I don't
> think they'll give it to anyone else (short of a subpoena, I guess).
> What benign reasons can you really have for not wanting the WMF to
> know who you are? Seems like slightly excessive paranoia, to me.

One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name
in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong).  And a
private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be
accidentally open to all to view.  And that's with me being
"paranoid".

And as just one example of a reason: I am open on-line about being a
gay woman.  I'm not quite that open in the 3D world.  For me my real
name being linked with "sannse" would be a mild embarrassment that may
damage my relationship with a few aunts and uncles.  For some a
revelation like that could be /very/ dangerous in many ways.  That's
just one reason off the top of my head.

But really, that's not the point for me... my name is none of your
damn business.  It's no harm if you go rummaging though my underwear
drawer, but I'm not going to allow that either.

-- sannse

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mark Bergsma-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> Does this mean that developers have to identify themselves as well and have
> to be so mature that they are proven legally adult ?
>
> I hope the WMF will consider this not a position of trust in accordance with
> this resolution.. If it is not, I think it I am sure that it is collateral
> damage.

Developers do not have access to private information, however people
with access to our servers do. That's one of the reasons why we do not
give out shell access to people under 18.

--
Mark Bergsma <[hidden email]>
System and Network Administrator, Wikimedia Foundation


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mohamed Magdy-2
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
<snip>

> Let me clarify.
> The resolution was drafted by Mindspillage on the 16 th of march.
> We had a board meeting on the 11th of march. The resolution was on the
> agenda of that meeting. Which means board members knew that the
> resolution would be voted upon that day.
> Two board members motionned it to vote (Jan-Bart and Kat).
> Then, on the 11th of april, 3 members voted: Jan-Bart, Kat and myself
> (unsufficient quorum for it to be passed).
> Michael approved it on the 16th and Oscar on the 19th.
> Technically, that means the quorum was reached on the 16th and the
> resolution was passed on the 16th.
>
> It was copied on the Foundation site on the 25th, which means that Jimbo
> could have added his vote until the 25th practically. But did not.
>
> When I copy the resolutions, what I usually do is to mention something
> like "4 approval, 1 against, 1 abstain, 1 vote missing".
> I now realise that Erik is not using the same system...
> So, I will go through all the resolutions to clarify and mention
> somewhere the exact terminology and what it means.
>
> In this case, the abstain means "no vote expressed"
>
> ant
>
>
>  
oh no, I was just generalizing and trying to understand each term for
the future resolutions..I wasn't asking for more clarifications
regarding this particular resolution ;) but thanks anyway :)

So now you will just agree on a unified layout...

*alnokta


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Andrew Gray
In reply to this post by sannse-2
On 01/05/07, sannse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I will now be resigning as OTRS admin and relinquishing oversight.
> That's mostly symbolic as I've not been active for some time, and
> several people (including Kat) know my full details anyway.  My first
> and middle names (Lisa Carter) are fully public as part of my work at
> Wikia, but I choose to keep my last name private.  I believe everyone
> in these positions should have that option.

Surely if your full details are known to Kat, and she is happy and
confident in them, we can reasonably say you are identified to the
foundation? The Foundation, or one of its agents, has privately and
directly verified your identity; it would, I assume, be satisfied with
that.

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by oscar van dillen
Thank you. Actually She was just a typo for Shi. ;-(

On 5/1/07, oscar van dillen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> afaik Shi is a He ;-)
>
> On 5/1/07, teun spaans <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that She meant that some kinds if identification will not be
> > available in every country.
> >
> > On 5/2/07, Mohamed Magdy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Walter Vermeir wrote:
> > > > shi zhao schreef:
> > > >
> > > >> How to prove their identity?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Is it not so that in some country's, like the USA, that is
> impossible?
> > > > No identity cards, no national database of birth registration,
> change
> > of
> > > > address, change of sex, marital status, dead. I believe wives even
> > > > change there name there when the marry. I do not see how you could
> > > > possibly be sure about the identity of anybody in a country like
> that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > can i?
> > > ...
> > > ...
> > > ...
> > > lol :)
> > >
> > > Seriously though, I think Shi was talking about how to make sure that
> > > whatever information the user is sending are the truth..and that s/he
> > > isn't forging it somehow...
> > >
> > > =alnokta
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the
> Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by sannse-2
> One person from Wikimedia has already accidentally used my real name
> in a public mailing list (although iirc he spelt it wrong).  And a
> private wiki with that name on my user page was found to be
> accidentally open to all to view.  And that's with me being
> "paranoid".

I hope the people responsible have been slapped repeatedly with a wet
fish - they really do need to be more careful with private
information. Revealing private information is one of the worst things
a member of Wikimedia staff could do.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Mohamed Magdy-2
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
Kat Walsh wrote:
> In addition, all users
> holding these positions must be 18 or older, and also of the age of
> majority in whichever jurisdiction they live in.
>
>  
Ahem... the resolution says "explicitly over the age at which they are
capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction
in which they reside"

That clearly says (implies) that it means over the Age of Consent[1] NOT
the Age of Majority[2]...it is either that you wrote it wrong or it was
wrote wrongly in the wiki.

@alnokta

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Cary Bass-3
In reply to this post by KIZU Naoko
Aphaia wrote:
> /me expects Cary announces the way to identify.
>
> A next question. Some of us faxed a copy of passports once to the
> Foundation office for another purpose. Is it sufficient for the
> Office, if they are told "hey you have already gotten it" or they
> would like us to send them it again?
>
>  
/we is looking...

Cary

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
Florence Devouard wrote:

>Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>  
>
>><snip>
>>"Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
>>
>>Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be
>>off-limit?
>>    
>>
>Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a
>position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>
>You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should
>not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with
>other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with
>the resolution").
>
>It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed.
>To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this
>resolution over a year ago:
>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_Consent_Procedures
>
>Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain"
>with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain".
>Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no
>vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the
>resolutions to check and correct this.
>
"Did not vote" would be ambiguous.  The proper distinction should be
between "abstain" and "absent".  "Absent" in particular states that the
person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he
wanted to.

There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited
above.  "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word.  
Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

metasj
In reply to this post by sannse-2

On Tue, 1 May 2007, sannse wrote:

> I'm sad to see where the Foundation is going with this change,
> although I do appreciate the pressures that have precipitated it.
>
> Regards,
>
> -- sannse
>
> (and /that/ is the only name you need to find out who I am and whether
> I can be trusted.  Your choice either way.)

This last comment is an important point.  I also think that this is an
unfortunate policy.

1) The utility of sharing real names, and being a certain age, is
overstated.  Require competence, maturity, and reputation; not the
paper assurance of age and Real identity.

2) Just ask people to share their real name, don't twist their arm.
They will tell you when they don't want to share, rather than fooling you.

3) If you really want to confirm that 'honest people are honest' and make
community members jump through hoops, set that bar higher (leave out, for
instance, basic OTRS access & checkuser)

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234