Mailing List Archive

Eia wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired.
> Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could
> someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement
> (will be/is) made?
>
We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a
larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some
years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or
structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next
week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.

In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very
happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs
are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random
complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of
most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks
they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to
contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our
committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be
reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From your comments, Michael, can we infer that you are considering making
the monitoring and enforcement of the privacy policy, and the subpolicy
[[m:checkuser]], a staff responsibility?

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hm, I always saw the ombudsman commission as a commission very different and
seperate from the whole commission structure. If I recall correctly, it was
mainly to fill a Real Gap, namely an option to file complaints for breach of
privacy policy. I think this clearly defined mission is quite different from
for instance communication committee, special projects committee and
chapters committee, which are much more vaguely defined, no clear purposes
and with vague membership and authority to the outer world. As I saw and see
it, is the ombudsman commission a replacement for a real ombudsman, a place
to file complaints without having to go to court.

Therefore, I'd like to plea to remain this structure if there are no
complaints about that as such, no matter what happens to the commission
structure as a whole.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/2 Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net>

> Eia wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired.
> > Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009.
> Could
> > someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement
> > (will be/is) made?
> >
> We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a
> larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some
> years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or
> structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next
> week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
>
> In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very
> happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs
> are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random
> complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of
> most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks
> they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to
> contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our
> committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be
> reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nathan wrote:
> >From your comments, Michael, can we infer that you are considering making
> the monitoring and enforcement of the privacy policy, and the subpolicy
> [[m:checkuser]], a staff responsibility?
>
I suppose that's one possibility, but not one I was particularly focused
on. Mike Godwin, to pick a possible candidate, already has more than
enough work to do.

Rather, the point is that there's a sense the ombudsman commission, as
currently constituted, has not been a fully satisfactory answer to the
potential scope of issues. Now one reaction might simply be a change in
personnel, but I think this is an appropriate point to reconsider the
structure as well.

What system would work best for us here? Should it remain a committee?
Another common approach is to have one person designated with that
responsibility. In places where demand is large enough, the ombudsman
might be an office or department, with support staff handling delegated
assignments, and the Ombudsman ultimately in charge at its head. If we
go with a designated person, that person might or might not be staff.
Another possibility, with either the committee or designee approaches,
is to "contract" this out to some other organization. If so, who? This
is the kind of analysis I was inviting in my last message.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effe iets anders wrote:
> Hm, I always saw the ombudsman commission as a commission very different and
> seperate from the whole commission structure. If I recall correctly, it was
> mainly to fill a Real Gap, namely an option to file complaints for breach of
> privacy policy. I think this clearly defined mission is quite different from
> for instance communication committee, special projects committee and
> chapters committee, which are much more vaguely defined, no clear purposes
> and with vague membership and authority to the outer world. As I saw and see
> it, is the ombudsman commission a replacement for a real ombudsman, a place
> to file complaints without having to go to court.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to plea to remain this structure if there are no
> complaints about that as such, no matter what happens to the commission
> structure as a whole.
>
I don't expect that we will abolish the ombudsman function entirely, I
didn't intend to give that impression. I appreciate that it has a
rationale, but the sense I've gotten from feedback so far is that the
existing system hasn't really met the needs of either the foundation or
the affected parts of the community. That's an incomplete sample of
information, though, so if somebody wants to speak up and make the case
for why the current setup is the best approach, I'm certainly open to
that as well.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net> writes:

> Rather, the point is that there's a sense the ombudsman commission,
> as currently constituted, has not been a fully satisfactory answer
> to the potential scope of issues. Now one reaction might simply be a
> change in personnel, but I think this is an appropriate point to
> reconsider the structure as well.

I think the structure need changing. I was one of the first three
ombudsmen, and I'm not satisfied with the very little I've done. One
of the problems was of course that it was a completely new
organization, with a very loosely defined task. Personally, I never
got into the job because of this ad-hocery. So I think that if the
present setup with three outside persons are to be kept, that the
terms should be three times the interval between selecting a new
member, so some continuity and routine could be retained. Otherwise it
will be an uphill struggle for each new generation of ombudsmen.

--
/Wegge

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Snow wrote:
> Eia wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired.
>> Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009. Could
>> someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement
>> (will be/is) made?
>>
>>
> We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a
> larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some
> years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or
> structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next
> week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
>
> In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very
> happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs
> are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random
> complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of
> most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks
> they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to
> contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our
> committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be
> reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
>
>


I took a trip down memory lane, having a vague recollection
that I had in fact been the first to suggest a committee
structure in my candidateship platform in the very first
elections to the board of trustees in 2004. I found that
at least Anthere had made some mention of work groups
in her candidate platform (and no, I didn't bother digging
up which of us was the first to edit that into our candidate
statement). I did find that the way I formulated my thoughts
then, has stood the test of time remarkably well (in terms of
reflecting the general manner I still think about these things).

So without further ado, this is what I said then:

<quote>
If other trustees agree; appointing /working groups/ of
qualified people to prepare workable choises (in consultation
with both the board of trustees and the users of the various
Wikimedia projects) for policies and institutions that the
users may adopt through either /consensus acclamation/
or if neccessary, /qualified majority voting/.

These working groups consisting of 3 to 5 /appointed
members/ and 1 to 3 trustees from the board of trustees.

Suggested (incomplete) list of working groups:

* /Copyright and intellectual property licencing policies./
* /Member association structures and bylaws./
* /User community institutions and policies./
* /Crossproject integration./
* /Steering committee./ (This including the whole Board of trustees
and a number of appointed members determined by the Board.)


</quote>

I infact have very little of consequence to add to
these thoughts I then had, before there ever was
a board of trustees. The starkest contrast
between this and the current system is that
all board members are not *inside* what is
perhaps the semi-equivalent of the Steering
committee in my proposal. That is to say,
the advisory committee does not contain
all of the board of trustees as its members.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
Thanks.

Lodewijk

2009/7/18 Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de@googlemail.com>

> On dewiki there is a discussion whether the Ombudsman commission does
> fulfill its mission.
>
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission
>
> Some months ago there was a checkuser action which was questioned by
> some users and the Ombudsman commission was asked to investigate the
> case. The only dewiki member of the Ombudsman commission did recuse
> himself from the case. The other members can't be reached or don't
> comment.
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> [[User:Pjacobi]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/26 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
> Thanks.
>
> Lodewijk
>

Doesn't appear to be.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/27 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2009/7/26 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
>> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
>> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>
> Doesn't appear to be.
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I'm working on it for a few days.


By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is
"laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work
on cases.

--
Christophe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I hope those procedures are fixed with a high priority. Because privacy is a
serious issue, and users are referred to the ombudsmen committee often,
assuming that is fully functional if necessary. If it is not, that means a
lot more responsibility for the WMF, the stewards etc. Are the current
members still willing to perform their tasks, are they able to? I hope this
gets fixed very fast.

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2009/7/27 Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com>

> 2009/7/27 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> > 2009/7/26 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com>:
> >> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> >> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation
> here.
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't appear to be.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> I'm working on it for a few days.
>
>
> By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is
> "laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work
> on cases.
>
> --
> Christophe
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is strange - in times past, we have had only 3 ombudsmen at a time, and
now we have five. Are they all fairly active? Do they want to continue this
role? Have they all been contacted? I notice, for example, that the enwiki
based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.


--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally<majorly.wiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>

I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
from the members...

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/28 Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org>:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally<majorly.wiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I notice, for example, that the enwiki
>> based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for a
>> role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
>>
>
> I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
> definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
> from the members...

I agree, edits aren't really relevant. In fact, I think people that
aren't very active on the projects would make better ombudsmen since
they are less likely to be involved and can be more independent.
What's most important is whether or not they are active on the
commission.

Perhaps the WMF should take over this role? It is their privacy policy
being enforced. When the commission was founded the WMF was very small
and it would have been very difficult for them to do the job, but it
is much bigger now so might be able to manage.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Casey Brown <lists@caseybrown.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Al Tally<majorly.wiki@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > I notice, for example, that the enwiki
> > based ombudsman, Sam Korn, has made just one edit this month. I think for
> a
> > role like this, it is necessary to be more active than that.
> >
>
> I wouldn't necessarily define "active" by edits in this role, but I
> definitely agree with you that I haven't seen much activity anywhere
> from the members...
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>

Depends. Lack of activity could easily indicate business in real life.

--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The issue is still unresolved.

de:User:Mautpreller, who filed the original complaint, just affirmed
that there is still no answer.

See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission

So, just doing nothing may be a way of telling de:User:Mautpreller
that his complaint is considered pointless, but this method of
(non-)communication seems out of place for complaints regarding such a
central topic as the privacy policy.


Regards,
Peter

*:User:Pjacobi

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/8/9 Peter Jacobi <pjacobi.de@googlemail.com>:
> The issue is still unresolved.
>
> de:User:Mautpreller, who filed the original complaint, just affirmed
> that there is still no answer.
>
> See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission
>
> So, just doing nothing may be a way of telling de:User:Mautpreller
> that his complaint is considered pointless, but this method of
> (non-)communication seems out of place for complaints regarding such a
> central topic as the privacy policy.
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> *:User:Pjacobi
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I am taking care of it but, i'm sorry, I took the case up only two
weeks ago. I have a job wich takes me a lot of time and german is not
my native language. So any answers won't just pop up.

I'll do as quick as I can to issue an answer.

All the best,

--
Christophe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l