User:Jbhunley/Post to Jimbo re concerns about WFFOC not actually chartered to perform role of an ombudsman

WMF Ombudsman commission  I had occasion to write a letter to the Ombudsman to address some inconsistencies between the plain reading and current interpretation and application of the WMF's Access to nonpublic personal data policy; specifically how Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is being interpenetrated to apply to information which, on its face, is either not covered by or explicitly excluded from the definition of non-public personal information (being the only information germane to the agreement) Since dealing with that policy and agreement is within the purview of Ombudsman commission I figured I'd write them a letter. I mean this is what an Ombudsman is for, right? Turns out it seems that is not the case here. According to their authorizing board resolutions (foundation:Resolution:Ombudsperson checkuser and foundation:Resolution:Amending the Scope of the Ombudsman Commission) it is not even a real Organizational ombudsman. They are chartered to (emp. mine) but only charged to later amended to. Not one mention about independently handling complaints or what to do when the WMF is the respondent. They are even tasked as agents of the Foundation That is not the description of an ombudsman function it is a description of a checkuser/oversight complaints window dressed up with a grand sounding name. So, my question is: Is the WMF Ombudsman commission equipped and authorized to act as a neutral party with respect to questions relating to the behavior of Foundation staff and their apparently incorrect interpretation and application of this policy and the associated legal agreement which gives it substance and effect? If not, does the Foundation have someone with such a function, for instance by making use of their outside council to address the substance of my letter and more generally for matters relating to what a WMF ombudsman should deal with -- disputes where the WMF and its agents are party? (Pinging the C-Suite because... why not? They are the one's who should know and might even answer: and the Community elected board members because addressing issues like this is the duty they were elected for and should answer: )   Jbh  Talk  17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)