Another item from the board meeting was reviewing the structure of
Wikimedia committees. We've passed a resolution that defines these a
little more, as well as dissolving a number that were created in the
past but no longer function. The full text is at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Committees
The chapters committee I pretty much covered yesterday. The language
committee, which as I understand developed as a subgroup of the
now-disbanded special projects committee, should function on its own.
We'll take a closer look at some of the issues that have been raised in
that area as well, but that goes beyond what we had time for, and it's
more appropriate for us to consult with the committee first.
The ombudsman committee, which has also been debated somewhat, we intend
to continue for this year as an interim measure. It will be expanded to
five members (currently we've identified four I believe, we should pass
a resolution soon after one more has been chosen). For the time being,
the role of the ombudsman committee remains limited to complaints about
CheckUser that may involve the privacy policy. To be specific, it is
only a foundation-level matter and a potential ombudsman issue if a
complaint relates to disclosure of information, as that's the only way
to violate the privacy policy. Someone with access merely using the
CheckUser tool is not an ombudsman issue, such issues are up to the
stewards and/or arbitration committees that regulate who has access.
Finally, as suggested in the resolution, I'll mention that we need to
reconstitute a committee to organize the board elections that will
happen later this year. Jan-Bart has again accepted the task of working
as the board's liaison for this process.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikimedia committees. We've passed a resolution that defines these a
little more, as well as dissolving a number that were created in the
past but no longer function. The full text is at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Wikimedia_Committees
The chapters committee I pretty much covered yesterday. The language
committee, which as I understand developed as a subgroup of the
now-disbanded special projects committee, should function on its own.
We'll take a closer look at some of the issues that have been raised in
that area as well, but that goes beyond what we had time for, and it's
more appropriate for us to consult with the committee first.
The ombudsman committee, which has also been debated somewhat, we intend
to continue for this year as an interim measure. It will be expanded to
five members (currently we've identified four I believe, we should pass
a resolution soon after one more has been chosen). For the time being,
the role of the ombudsman committee remains limited to complaints about
CheckUser that may involve the privacy policy. To be specific, it is
only a foundation-level matter and a potential ombudsman issue if a
complaint relates to disclosure of information, as that's the only way
to violate the privacy policy. Someone with access merely using the
CheckUser tool is not an ombudsman issue, such issues are up to the
stewards and/or arbitration committees that regulate who has access.
Finally, as suggested in the resolution, I'll mention that we need to
reconstitute a committee to organize the board elections that will
happen later this year. Jan-Bart has again accepted the task of working
as the board's liaison for this process.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l