[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
50 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I took
it on.

Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen the
ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with the
exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit, who
has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory member
of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.

It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been extremely
remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of commission,
and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.

Best wishes,
pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Béria Lima
Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
a new process, Philippe?
_____
*Béria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I took
> it on.
>
> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen the
> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with the
> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit, who
> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory member
> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
>
> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been extremely
> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of commission,
> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
>
> Best wishes,
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Richard Symonds-3
I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...

Richard
On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
> > with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
> > the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> > efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
> > who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> took
> > it on.
> >
> > Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> the
> > ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> the
> > exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
> who
> > has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> member
> > of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >
> > It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> extremely
> > remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> commission,
> > and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > pb
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Huib Laurens
Yeah, they are doing a very good job...

One year a go with all the "abigor" drama everybody told go to the
umbutsman commision, and they never responded...

I'm happy to see that we keep the failing commite with the same people yet
another year.

Best,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Etienne Beaule-2
In reply to this post by Richard Symonds-3
Still, a vote for new members should of been done.

Ebe123


On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
>
> Richard
> On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
>> a new process, Philippe?
>> _____
>> *Béria Lima*
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
>> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>>
>>
>> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
>>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
>>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool,
>>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
>>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board,
>>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
>> took
>>> it on.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
>> the
>>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
>> the
>>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
>> who
>>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
>> member
>>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
>>>
>>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
>> extremely
>>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
>> commission,
>>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> pb
>>> ___________________
>>> Philippe Beaudette
>>> Director, Community Advocacy
>>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>>>
>>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>>>
>>> [hidden email]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Risker
Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
point out that there has never been a vote for this position.

Risker/Anne

On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
>
> Ebe123
>
>
> On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> >
> > Richard
> > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of
> running
> >> a new process, Philippe?
> >> _____
> >> *Béria Lima*
> >>
> >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> >> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> >>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.  Charged
> >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> tool,
> >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and
> >>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> Board,
> >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> >> took
> >>> it on.
> >>>
> >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
> >> the
> >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
> >> the
> >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
> >> who
> >>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> >> member
> >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> >> extremely
> >>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> >> commission,
> >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> pb
> >>> ___________________
> >>> Philippe Beaudette
> >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >>>
> >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >>>
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Lodewijk
Hi Anne,

it was however common procedure to ask publicly for applications before
making a decision on who are the best candidates. Maybe they are the best
there are - maybe not, we'll never know.

As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
privately).

Best,

Lodewijk

El 22 de abril de 2012 21:46, Risker <[hidden email]> escribió:

> Without commenting on the quality of the work of the Ombudsmen, I'll just
> point out that there has never been a vote for this position.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 22 April 2012 15:43, Etienne Beaule <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Still, a vote for new members should of been done.
> >
> > Ebe123
> >
> >
> > On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, "Richard Symonds" <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at
> > > least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email...
> > >
> > > Richard
> > > On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, "Béria Lima" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of
> > running
> > >> a new process, Philippe?
> > >> _____
> > >> *Béria Lima*
> > >>
> > >> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> > >> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> > >> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and
> > >>> undramatically.  The ombudsman commission is such a committee.
>  Charged
> > >>> with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser
> > tool,
> > >>> the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism
> and
> > >>> efficiency.  The commission is appointed under the auspices of the
> > Board,
> > >>> who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I
> > >> took
> > >>> it on.
> > >>>
> > >>> Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the
> ombudsmen
> > >> the
> > >>> ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All,
> with
> > >> the
> > >>> exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is
> Pundit,
> > >> who
> > >>> has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
> > >> member
> > >>> of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
> > >>>
> > >>> It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
> > >> extremely
> > >>> remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
> > >> commission,
> > >>> and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best wishes,
> > >>> pb
> > >>> ___________________
> > >>> Philippe Beaudette
> > >>> Director, Community Advocacy
> > >>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > >>>
> > >>> 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > >>>
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> [hidden email]
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Lodewijk, 22/04/2012 23:58:
> As an unrelated sidenote, I still hope the committee will public an annual
> report of her activities in summary (as I suggested a few members
> privately).

If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask
the commission whether they reached them.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
In reply to this post by Béria Lima
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Béria Lima <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can you explain why you request another year from them  instead of running
> a new process, Philippe?
> _____
> *Béria Lima*
>
>
Hi Beria -

It's a good question, and a fair one.

The truth is, there were a couple of factors:  first, did I believe the
current commission was doing a good job?  No, I actually think they're
doing an *exceptional* job.  Second, was there a desire from among
themselves for change?  Yes, Pundit wanted to be a steward, but when
Christine and I were scouting for this committee, we had anticipated
someone rotating off and had another commissioner who was already trained
and participating.  So the commission was stable.

Then, what is the cost and benefit of the search?  On the benefit side,
there's the ability to form a new commission with all the myriad benefits
that flow from that.  But on the contra side, I sort of felt like stability
is something good right now: systems are changing everywhere, and maybe
keeping this one with a core group of stable people who are doing a good
job is a good idea.  I continue to believe that is true.

In addition, running a search is costly: in time for volunteers and staff.
 This is a secondary consideration - obviously, if the preceding had not
been true, we'd have made the staff time to run the search.  But when I
looked at the realities of my transition to a new team, to not having
Christine to help, and at Maggie's workload, there was a definite savings
in "time beyond the norm" that would have been used to run this search.

They're hard:  it's more than just asking for volunteers.  We put together
the commission with an eye toward diversity of gender, project, language,
and geography, and we needed Wikimedians who are above reproach: this folks
are the ultimate arbiters of the checkuser tool, and they have to be
unblemished.  So much as a whiff of an issue around privacy, and things
could get very uncomfortable... so we did a lot of deep diving into
backgrounds.  It's a very very time intensive process, and we could frankly
use the time other places.

Finally, I continue to believe that we should stick with traditions that
make sense, but give them enough flexibility to change with circumstances:
so re-appointing the commission this time was partially intended to set
that as a possible solution going forward.  That said, in order to prevent
a "permanent committee", I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would
ever reappoint a full commission more than one time. But, I wanted to have
reappointment in my (or whomever's) list of tools for the future if need
be.

Hope that gives you some insight into my thinking.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
<[hidden email]>



On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>wrote:

>
> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
> commission whether they reached them.



I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to position
it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Thomas Goldammer
Hi all,

Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
and therefore took a while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
within the committee, also for future committee searches.

However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
people to the right place where they could get help for their
individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
cases to this body.

Best regards,
Thogo.

2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>:

> <[hidden email]>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>>
>> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask the
>> commission whether they reached them.
>
>
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to position
> it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
> not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.  :)

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Lodewijk
Hi Thomas,

of course the privacy of those involved needs to be guarantueed. But
questions I had in mind were:

* How many cases were brought to your attention?
* How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant
investigation beyond direct dismissal?
* How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)?
* In how many cases in total did the committee take action (or advise the
WMF to take action)?
* How many emails did you exchange over the past year on your mailing list?
* Were you able to send a confirmation with the outcome of the case to
every complainor?
* Was the person complained about informed every time of the fact they were
under investigation?
* Is the process accurately described on meta?
* Do you have steps in place to ensure every single request gets the follow
up it needs, if not will that be improved?
* How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
committee?

This information could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs. I
suspect that the Board already receives such summary (the committee reports
directly to the board according to the meta
page<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission>)
so an extract from that would probably be easiest. Even if that is not the
case I have the feeling it should be doable to create these numbers
afterwards for 2011. That is not only a big win for transparancy, but also
for future candidate members - they would know what they are getting into.
Finally, it allows people to evaluate if they trust the committee enough to
send their complaints to. I know several people who in the past (before the
current committee probably) have sent complaints but felt it was a black
box and have no idea what happened to them. That can be quite damaging for
the image and should be avoided.

Best,

Lodewijk

El 23 de abril de 2012 01:51, Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]>escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
> much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
> that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
> count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
> and therefore took a while (or are still pending). We cannot tell you
> which projects (or even people) were involved or what the results
> were. Sometimes, the language barrier was a bit hindering, so I pretty
> much appreciate the effort to maintain a level of language diversity
> within the committee, also for future committee searches.
>
> However, I want to point out that at least half of the requests that
> came to us, had nothing to do with the privacy policy and were
> therefore not dealt with in detail. We always tried to direct the
> people to the right place where they could get help for their
> individual problem, but we do not know if they actually got help. In
> most of these cases, the problem was more of a sort an arbcom would be
> able to deal with. I (personally) still very much support the idea of
> creating a Global Requests Committee, the proposal for which was
> developed last year, but has not yet been created, for whatever
> reason. This body could handle such and similar requests and some
> other things and it would ease our work as we could just give such
> cases to this body.
>
> Best regards,
> Thogo.
>
> 2012/4/23 Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>:
> > <[hidden email]>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> [hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If they don't, the community could define some quality metrics and ask
> the
> >> commission whether they reached them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is an excellent idea.  Although I'd encourage you to
> position
> > it as "this is what the community would like to see going forward" - it's
> > not fair to hold a past commission to metrics they didn't know they had.
>  :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Thomas Goldammer
> * How many cases were brought to your attention?

around 30, give or take

> * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant
> investigation beyond direct dismissal?

around 10, I'd say

> * How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)?

none that I would remember

> * In how many cases in total did the committee take action (or advise the
> WMF to take action)?

we requested user rights changes for the committee or asked for
further information we were not able to obtain ourselves several times
(thanks to Philippe for helping us all the time with this!), but we
never asked/recommended the Board to remove CU/steward rights from
anyone.

> * How many emails did you exchange over the past year on your mailing list?

I'd say at least 500. Could also be 1000 or more, I really can't tell
you any exact numbers and I won't count it.

> * Were you able to send a confirmation with the outcome of the case to
> every complainor?

Except for the cases still under investigation, I guess so. We now
usually also send a confirmation when we receive a request (we didn't
do that in the beginning).

> * Was the person complained about informed every time of the fact they were
> under investigation?

If someone did not make any mistake we do not tell them that someone
complained about them. We contacted them only if we had questions to
them or if we deemed it necessary to explain something to them.

> * Is the process accurately described on meta?

Which process do you mean?

> * Do you have steps in place to ensure every single request gets the follow
> up it needs, if not will that be improved?

We are working on developing a better way of keeping track of the
requests at the moment. However, the technical possibilities are
limited, for security and privacy reasons.

> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> committee?

I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.

>
> This information could probably be summarized in a few paragraphs. I
> suspect that the Board already receives such summary (the committee reports
> directly to the board according to the meta
> page<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission>)
> so an extract from that would probably be easiest. Even if that is not the
> case I have the feeling it should be doable to create these numbers
> afterwards for 2011. That is not only a big win for transparancy, but also
> for future candidate members - they would know what they are getting into.
> Finally, it allows people to evaluate if they trust the committee enough to
> send their complaints to. I know several people who in the past (before the
> current committee probably) have sent complaints but felt it was a black
> box and have no idea what happened to them. That can be quite damaging for
> the image and should be avoided.

Sorry if someone gets the impression of a black box, but as we are
investigating privacy violations, we have to be very careful which
information to share and we prefer to share as little as possible. The
committee works very simple, we receive a complaint, which we confirm
to the complainor, then we discuss if a privacy violation can even be
involved. If not, we decline the request and - if possible - we try to
tell the complainor where they can get help for their problem. If
indeed a privacy violation is possible we investigate on this and then
we have a result whether or not there was a breach of the policy and
we give that result to the complainor, explaining them why we think
there was (or not) a breach of the policy. If we do find a breach of
privacy we would have to discuss what we do about it. But as I said,
we never recommended to the Board to remove any rights from a CU or
steward. I hope that such a recommendation will never be necessary,
but of course we are ready for this, *if* it becomes necessary. :)
This whole investigation process can take a while and can involve
contacting the person about whom the complaint was, if we need to ask
them for clarification on the issue, or if we need to tell them how to
avoid such issues in the future. It can also involve us doing checks
on users ourselves to double-check CU results (of course, in such
cases we inform the local CUs why they see us in the log).

However, when we will finally have set up our technical aids to keep
better track of the cases, we will be able to improve on all this.

Th.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer <[hidden email]>wrote:

> > * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> > committee?
>
> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>


To my knowledge, none.

pb

___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

[hidden email]

<[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Etienne Beaule-2
Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint.  Let's say 1.

Ebe123


On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
>>> committee?
>>
>> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
>> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
>> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>>
>
>
> To my knowledge, none.
>
> pb
>
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <[hidden email]>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l.  For a
formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.

pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

[hidden email]



On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint.  Let's say 1.
>
> Ebe123
>
>
> On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> > <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of the
> >>> committee?
> >>
> >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
> >>
> >
> >
> > To my knowledge, none.
> >
> > pb
> >
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > <[hidden email]>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Lodewijk
Exactly, I was referring to formal complaints which probably have the
intention to reaching out to the board.

In any case, I think it would be very helpful if the information Thomas has
provided could be summarized in a short report on meta so that it is also a
template for the future. Perhaps some of the numbers can even be made more
precise (number wizards probably can extract the number of emails more
easily etc - although I realize now that most likely your mailing list has
no archive :) ).

The process I referred to is everything that happens between the receipt of
a complaint about privacy violation and the final action decision taken by
the committee. I.e. "1. Confirm receipt of the complaint. 2. Register
complaint for tracking purposes. 3. Decide if the complaint falls within
scope of the committee..." etc.  That would complainors give an idea what
is going to happen with their complaint and what they can expect. Currently
the description is quite vague on meta :)

Thanks for all the answers so far!

Lodewijk

El 23 de abril de 2012 12:20, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]>escribió:

> That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l.  For a
> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.
>
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
>
> > Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint.  Let's say 1.
> >
> > Ebe123
> >
> >
> > On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
> > > <[hidden email]>wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of
> the
> > >>> committee?
> > >>
> > >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
> > >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
> > >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, none.
> > >
> > > pb
> > >
> > > ___________________
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > Director, Community Advocacy
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > >
> > > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > >
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Huib Laurens
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-3
On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter
has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it?

Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a
responds about the complaint self, we only got the responds "We don't think
any office action is needed".

Best,

Huib

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>
wrote:
U> That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l.  For a

> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.
>
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> [hidden email]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Etienne Beaule <[hidden email]
>wrote:
>
>> Abigor did a message to wikimedia-I for his complaint.  Let's say 1.
>>
>> Ebe123
>>
>>
>> On 12-04-23 7:16 AM, "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:06 AM, Thomas Goldammer
>> > <[hidden email]>wrote:
>> >
>> >>> * How many formal complaints were received about the functioning of
the

>> >>> committee?
>> >>
>> >> I don't know, ask Philippe. ;) I guess some people were not happy
>> >> about the time it took to get to a result (I'm not, either.), or about
>> >> the result itself. But there is always a way to improve things.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > To my knowledge, none.
>> >
>> > pb
>> >
>> > ___________________
>> > Philippe Beaudette
>> > Director, Community Advocacy
>> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>> >
>> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
>> >
>> > [hidden email]
>> >
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
Kind regards,

Huib Laurens
WickedWay.nl

Webhosting the wicked way.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-3
Philippe Beaudette, 23/04/2012 12:20:
> That's not a formal complaint. That's an email to wikimedia-l.  For a
> formal complaint, I'd request documentation of the dates presented, etc.

What's a "formal complaint" then? I don't see anywhere instruction about
how to file one and all ways I can think of don't seem adequate.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

Philippe Beaudette-3
In reply to this post by Huib Laurens
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Huib Laurens <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On my behalve a letter has been send to the foundation and the same letter
> has ben send by fax. How formal do you wish to get it?
>
> Nor I or the person that sended this communication on my behalf got a
> responds about the complaint self, we only got the responds "We don't think
> any office action is needed".
>
> Best,
>
> Huib


Bearing in mind that it's nearly 4AM, but I'm not aware of that letter.  If
such a letter was sent, of course, we'll increment that to "1" from zero. :)

pb
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
123