Talk:Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Archives/2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Rjd0060 in topic Reappointments of people signing after removal
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Reappointments of people signing after removal
I propose to consider as non controversial (then to be done just on request) reappointments of people signing the relevant NDA after removal, within a term of six months before deadline (then before 31/5/2016). I took the six months period as it is the average inactivity limit for checkusers, oversighters, etc. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Per our discussion in ML, I also support this Mardetanha talk 13:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yep that's good. --Stryn (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- 3 months are enough IMHO, but would not mind giving 6 months. I wonder however how this can conciliate with local policies that mandates when a right is removed or lost, the user must re-candidate again to obtain the permission. —MarcoAurelio 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, that is a call the WMF should make. I would personally prefer it when the request to reinstate the right comes from WMF. Otherwise, I think anything up to one year (which is the inactivity cause per oversight and checkuser policy) is ok to re-grant the rights as with what we've done multiple times in the past. -Barras talk 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- While I intend to try and ask for rights addition each time I would love if Stewards felt free to re-add if I hadn't gotten around to it yet (since multiple staff members check the list and update the noticeboard and most of them would wait for me to post the request). I've mentioned this to the Stewards directly but the WMF is happy with people getting it added back within 6 months if the only reason their rights were removed was because of the Confidentiality Agreement. The only reason for not making it an indefinite timeline is that at some point you want to ensure the community still wants them. Jalexander--WMF 02:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes six months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. It makes sense to re-addd people after they sign during the next 6 months. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Support Platonides (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)- Support --Rschen7754 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to note that OTRS users who have failed to sign their agreement (one that is similar but separate than that for functionaries) had their accounts closed on January 1. If they sign the agreement within the next week or two, we will generally be happy to reopen their account. This is a limited time "grace period." Other agents who come around after this period will have to re-apply via the normal means. I just thought I would share how we are handling it on the OTRS side of things. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
