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

Pedro Sanchez-2
On 5/1/07, Thomas Dalton <[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.
>
> 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.
>

Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.

_______________________________________________
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 Ray Saintonge
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> 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

Uh ?
When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can
not" or "can't" ?

Is not that so ?


_______________________________________________
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 Pedro Sanchez-2
On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.


Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
someone needing it kept secure.


- 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

Sebastian Moleski
In reply to this post by Florence Devouard-3
On 5/1/07, Florence Devouard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Uh ?
> When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can
> not" or "can't" ?
>
> Is not that so ?


This is true for almost all auxiliary verbs in the negative. "cannot" is a
special case though, of whch, thankfully, the English language has so few
;-)

sm

_______________________________________________
> 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

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge
On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "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.
>
That doesn't seem to be the case, though.  From the description
provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a
meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement.  There was
no "there" to be present or absent from.

Consent agreements usually have to be unanimous, but apparently
Florida law allows for "majority consent agreements", a term which I
just made up and has zero Google hits.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
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 David Gerard-2
David Gerard wrote:

> On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
>> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
>> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
>
>
> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
> someone needing it kept secure.
>
>
> - d.


This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such
information.

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 Andrew Gray
> 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.

I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
everyone else, or to resign.

Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I
just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy
in place.

-- 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

fredbaud
In reply to this post by Ray Saintonge

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Florence Devouard [mailto:[hidden email]]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 10:15 AM
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed
>
>David Gerard wrote:
>> On 01/05/07, Pedro Sanchez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I think most people are missing this point. The identities won't
>>> be made public, they won't be posted on wiki, they will be privately
>>> archived. The Foundation will be the only one having the information.
>>
>>
>> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
>> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
>> someone needing it kept secure.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>
>
>This calls for a lawyer to be the one in charge of handling such
>information.
>
>ant

That just gives you someone to blame. Lawyers are often quite loose with document security.  What you need is good document security.

Fred



_______________________________________________
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

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by sannse-2
On 5/1/07, sannse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
> this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
> change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
> everyone else, or to resign.
>
I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy.  You
say your name is none of our business.  That's fine, but then my IP
address is none of your business.

Anthony

_______________________________________________
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

brock.weller@gmail.com
In reply to this post by sannse-2
Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons,
but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out
there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes
out better for all.

Giving any sort of power (even adminship) to somebody who the community does
not know by name has always seemed wacky.

Have we gotten an answer about unblock-l volunteers? I create accounts, see
passwords, locations, frequently names and phone numbers there. Seems like
that should be verified somehow.

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

>
> > 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.
>
> I'm sure it would.  But I  would not be satisfied with that.  I oppose
> this policy, and so my feeling is that my only moral choices are to
> change my mind fully and follow the same verification process as
> everyone else, or to resign.
>
> Obviously the board and the Foundation still has my full support, I
> just don't feel able to continue in these positions with this policy
> in place.
>
> -- sannse
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
-Brock
_______________________________________________
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 Anthony DiPierro
On 5/1/07, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I still don't understand what your problem is with the policy.  You
> say your name is none of our business.  That's fine, but then my IP
> address is none of your business.

It's quite simple, I believe that privacy on-line is an important
ideal (while being fully aware of the practical limitations of that).
I believe anonymity should be an accepted choice, and should be no
barrier to participation in the Foundation.

I have no interest in your IP address, and would consider it the hight
of bad manners to try and find out what it was (unless of course it
was needed to prevent you disrupting the project with vandalism or
whatever)

-- 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

sannse-2
In reply to this post by brock.weller@gmail.com
On 5/1/07, Brock Weller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just seems to be excessive paranoia Sannse. I guess you have your reasons,
> but I can't imagine any legitimate ones for not wanting your information out
> there. Even with the crap I had to go through with Brandt's minions it comes
> out better for all.

I gave one good reason someone might have earlier.  As for my own
reasons (other than the philosophical/ethical issue of privacy) it's
quite simple.  I have a distinctive name, I live in a small town, I do
/not/ want phone calls about Wikimedia or Wikia in the middle of the
night.

When I first decided to keep my name private, I was concerned about
SOLLOG and the way he was harrasing various Wikipedians.  Nowadays I'd
be more worried about someone phoning me up to ask how to change the
logo on their Wikia :-)  but either way, I'd rather that didn't
happen.

(Yes, I know I can get my number delisted.  No, I don't wish to do that).

-- 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

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a
half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a
strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the
reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the
resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need
to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should
note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID
right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue
with).

Despite this, looking at the issue again and after having discussed it with

On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. 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.
>
> To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
>
> A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
> their own actions.
>
> Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> volunteer coordinator, at [hidden email]. We will also attempt to
> contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> please spread this message to those in your communities.
>
> For the Wikimedia Foundation,
> Kat Walsh
>
> --
> Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/

_______________________________________________
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

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Whoops, gmail keyboard shortcuts can be too good at times... here is the rest:

... others, I think that there is perhaps a way for the Foundation to
get round the issue in order to keep volunteers. I know that I handle
a good deal of private information for freenode as part of the group
registration process, but we are getting round this by using a
Non-Consent Agreement - this will allow us to all handle data
regardless of age as we are still legally bound. Why would we escape
this legally just for being under 18? I'm sure that the law still
places a degree of liability upon minors.

Simply: I think that there must be a way to get round this to help
both WMF and its younger volunteers, but that in general the
resolution is a good idea - we need *something* covering this hole, so
to speak, before an accident happens.

Thanks,
Sean

On 01/05/07, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, it looks like I'm going to have to give up OTRS for a year and a
> half or so. It seems to me a shame that this had to happen, as a
> strong arm of the community is under eighteen. However, looking at the
> reasoning behind this, I cannot deny that it is well founded and the
> resolution in that light seems necessary. It makes sense that we need
> to protect ourselves from unpleasant situations with age (I should
> note that I totally agree with the requirement of some form of ID
> right now for legal reasons, but age is the only thing I take issue
> with).
>
> Despite this, looking at the issue again and after having discussed it with
>
> On 01/05/07, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The Wikimedia Foundation has passed a resolution requiring all users
> > with access to non-public data covered by the site's Privacy Policy to
> > provide identification to the Foundation. This includes checkusers,
> > oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS. 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.
> >
> > To read the details of the resolution, please see:
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Access_to_nonpublic_data
> >
> > A number of parties have trusted us with private, sensitive, or
> > confidential information. Some of the handling of this information is
> > delegated, by necessity, to certain trusted volunteers. In
> > consideration of those who depend on us to behave responsibly, and the
> > reasonable and commonly-accepted practices for handling private
> > information, we wish to be able to say who is responsible for handling
> > this information to ensure that volunteers can be held accountable for
> > their own actions.
> >
> > Those affected by this resolution should contact Cary Bass, WMF
> > volunteer coordinator, at [hidden email]. We will also attempt to
> > contact everyone individually who will need to do this; however,
> > please spread this message to those in your communities.
> >
> > For the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > Kat Walsh
> >
> > --
> > Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> —Sean Whitton (seanw)
> <[hidden email]>
> http://seanwhitton.com/
>


--
—Sean Whitton (seanw)
<[hidden email]>
http://seanwhitton.com/

_______________________________________________
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

Matthew Brown-5
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 5/1/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
> someone needing it kept secure.

Which reminds me to ask: if we have a duty to identify ourselves to
the Foundation, what duties of confidentiality does the Foundation
agree to hold itself to?

What happens if this information is leaked - accidentally, on purpose,
through security breach or robbery or ... ?

Will the foundation fight a discovery motion or subpoena or the like
asking for our personal information, or will it roll over and give up
the information without a fight, in the hope a potential lawsuit will
go after us rather than them?  Will the Foundation even notify us in
this case?  I am concerned that harassing individuals, knowing the
Foundation has this info on file, will file bogus lawsuits just to get
their hands on it.

I'm also curious as to whether this changes our legal relationship
with the Foundation in other ways.

Most of this does not personally concern me all that much since I've
never made that much of an effort to keep my online identity private:
I am no good at keeping secrets.  But the implications may concern
others more than I.

-Matt

_______________________________________________
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 Mohamed Magdy-2
On 02/05/07, Mohamed Magdy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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.

No, the age at which you can legally make a binding decision
independent of parental (etc) consent is indeed the age of majority.
The age of consent relates to the the capacity of the individual to
consent to sexual activity, and really doesn't factor in here much...
I really don't see how that can be interpreted as "must be over the
age of consent" unless you squint really hard.

--
- 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

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

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>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
>>    
>>
>Uh ?
>When at school, I remember learning that either we should write "can
>not" or "can't" ?
>
>Is not that so ?
>
Don't believe everything that you learned in school. :-)

Perhaps grammatical "inaccuracy" would have been a better choice than
"error".

In most cases "can not" and "cannot" are indeed interchangeable, and in
most circumstances and spoken speech it doesn't matter.  Both Fowler and
the Oxford consider the two forms acceptable, with the one word form
becoming more common.

Perhaps years of reading tax laws affects the way I read "legal"
writing.  I often ask myself whether there is a plausibly unexpected way
of reading a passage. Thus with the clause in question "Modifications to
the bylaws or articles of incorporation can (not be made) with consent
resolutions." it reads differently with the parentheses put there to
indicate a different emphasis.  In French the distinction would be
between "ne peut pas faire" and "peut ne pas faire".

In speech pauses are phonemic.  Thus we have the title of the Lynn Truss
book "Eats shoots and leaves" to distinguish it from "Eats, shoots and
leaves"  In that case a comma distingusishes the two readings which in
spoken speech would be distinguished by a pause.  Negative constructions
are notorious for ambiguities.  Consider the alternative clause: "[No]
modifications to the bylaws or [to the] articles of incorporation
[shall] ^ be made [by] consent resolution^.  (Changes in brackets,
omissions marked by carets)  Such a phrasing may also avoid some of the
ambiguities.

"Can't" is a contraction, and as such is not generally acceptable in
formal writing, but it does have the benefit of being unambiguous in the
contest we are considering.

English auxilliary verbs can present a big challenge since English is a
more syntactic language.  Sorry if this seems like a good language rant.

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

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Anthony DiPierro
Anthony wrote:

>On 5/1/07, Ray Saintonge <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>
>>"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.
>>    
>>
>That doesn't seem to be the case, though.  From the description
>provided by Ant, this wasn't a resolution passed by vote during a
>meeting, but rather it was an open-ended consent agreement.  There was
>no "there" to be present or absent from.
>
"There" can be defined by the Foundation.  Perhaps it can be wherever
the secretary happens to be since it's normally the secretary that keeps
track of the books and records of the company.

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

Brad Patrick
In reply to this post by Matthew Brown-5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sorry, can't let this go by unanswered.  My statements are historical
and have no bearing on what is presently being done, as I have nothing
to do with the Foundation anymore.  But:

1) Information obtained by the Foundation is subject to the privacy
policy adopted by the board.  Always.

2) What happens if...?  I don't understand your question.  If there is a
security breach, etc., it's a big problem, like it would be for any
company or organization.

3) Will the Foundation fight?  That depends, but the clearest answer you
will get is, there is no guarantee of security, only the best anyone can
 offer.  Any other statement is hogwash.  If your identity is so secret
that you can't let it be shared, then don't share it.  That is your
decision, and no one elses.  For example, I appreciate what sannse is
saying, and I hold her in very high regard, but I think her opposition
to the policy is misguided.  People *do* already know who she is.  The
point is that the Foundation cannot risk letting people no Foundation
person has shaken hands with, spoken to on the phone, etc., from having
the capacity to expose confidential information.  One word: Essjay.

In practice, persons who are the object of investigation by a third
party usually know someone is after them.  The standard practice
supported by EFF and other free speech organizations, and encouraged
under Florida law, is to advise the individual of the subpoena to allow
them the opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena and to seek
to intervene to limit or supply conditions for the discovery.  There is
never a guarantee the information can *never* be turned over.  Under
most normal situations, however, it won't be.

4) Bogus suits are bogus suits, and run afoul of state and federal
rules.  In Florida, you don't get that discovery automatically.

5) What legal relationship do you think changes?

Brad Patrick

Matthew Brown wrote:

> On 5/1/07, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Except on those occasions when, as Sannse's case demonstrates, that
>> the Foundation cannot be trusted to keep the personal data secure of
>> someone needing it kept secure.
>
> Which reminds me to ask: if we have a duty to identify ourselves to
> the Foundation, what duties of confidentiality does the Foundation
> agree to hold itself to?
>
> What happens if this information is leaked - accidentally, on purpose,
> through security breach or robbery or ... ?
>
> Will the foundation fight a discovery motion or subpoena or the like
> asking for our personal information, or will it roll over and give up
> the information without a fight, in the hope a potential lawsuit will
> go after us rather than them?  Will the Foundation even notify us in
> this case?  I am concerned that harassing individuals, knowing the
> Foundation has this info on file, will file bogus lawsuits just to get
> their hands on it.
>
> I'm also curious as to whether this changes our legal relationship
> with the Foundation in other ways.
>
> Most of this does not personally concern me all that much since I've
> never made that much of an effort to keep my online identity private:
> I am no good at keeping secrets.  But the implications may concern
> others more than I.
>
> -Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGN6km5txwQhyxnbIRAostAJ0bnbpHGtlExDJUOLskO3c18A67OQCcDL5V
wdm8tV6yzM+AHzXajw06UkA=
=Oq60
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
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 Whitworth
In reply to this post by Kat Walsh-4
I'm wondering what kinds of hoops need to be jumped through in order to be
granted an exception to this resolution? The final provision does mention
that exceptions can be made by the board. en.wikibooks has an enthusiastic,
highly-motivated, and very professional vandal fighter who had been a
candidate for checkuser (a very popular candidate), and who cannot now be
given those tools because of his age. I would be a fool if i did not at
least inquire about the possibility of this individual being granted such an
exception.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07


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