Talk:Licensing update/Committee

I'm assuming that the members of this Committee won't be given access to the IP's of voters (as the Board election software does for the Board Election Committee), given not all of the members of the Committee meet the access to nonpublic data policy. If someone could confirm or correct me as to this fact, it'd be greatly appreciated. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Your link is dead; I assume you meant to link here? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, [[wmf:*]] is broken it seems - thanks, fixed in my initial comment. Daniel (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you used the wrong pagename. Fixed. Cbrown1023 talk 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Which current members do you feel should be excluded according to the policy? Note that the policy does not require age restrictions to be implemented.--Eloquence 18:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant clause is "Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside". Naturally, I suspect the defence is "this is not a community process", or you're going to emphasize the word "may" in the phrase "may include proof that such user is at least 18", which would degrade the purpose of the policy (which was to ensure that liability for actions could be apportioned to the user, and not a subsidiary such as a parent or guardian, for breaches of the privacy policy). If you could clarify which argument you believe applies to this circumstance, I can then address it directly rather than covering a multitude of discussion points of which many won't be relevant or applicable. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying anything applies; I have no strong position on the matter. I can understand the sensitivity of IP address disclosure even in a fairly narrow context like this, so if there's a prevalent feeling we should place limitations (age of majority, proof of identity on file or otherwise established) on who in the group will get to participate in the vote counting part of the process, I have no problem with that.--Eloquence 07:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As a person under the age of majority, I'll say here that I have no problem with complying with this restriction. Good sense is good sense. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The simple solution is just to tweak the boardvote software so that the "IP" column is hidden from view...that would solve every issue arising from the non-public data policy :) Daniel (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that I don't have any problems with complying with this restriction, but I don't have any problems with sending my id also. Abigor talk 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)