User talk:Barberio/RFC-sandbox

Just a friendly note
Hi Barberio... I ran across your sandbox and I hope you won't take it too amiss if I made a few comments. For the sake of disclosure, I am an OTRS volunteer and I have been for some time.

"OTRS membership be required to fully identify themselves to the Arbitration Committees on request."
 * I think that is the practice now anyway - there are at least 9 arbcom members with OTRS access. Very few of the OTRS members are secret as far as I know. You can review a fairly extensive list on meta.

"Failure to disclose a conflict of interest should result in automatic exclusion of OTRS privileges on en.wikipedia"
 * As far as I know OTRS members are currently subject to the same type of disciplinary actions that a regular editor might face if editing with a conflict of interests.

"OTRS membership expected to identify their membership if the are sanctioned or warned by any project's Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee is entitled to revoke OTRS privileges on en.wikipedia. Arbitration Committee should be entitled to request an OTRS volunteer be removed from OTRS membership."
 * As far as I know OTRS members are currently subject to arbcom in the same way as any other editor. An OTRS member can have his adminship revoked and be blocked like normal. This effectively accomplishes what you are asking for. However, the abrcom is a local project and the OTRS is a meta-project.

Anyway, have a nice day. I hope you find this information helpful. -J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A problem is it's 'As far as I know'. These days, we expect something a bit more concrete than that on the wiki. OTRS seems to be playing catch up with the standards of transparent operation that the rest of the wiki are adopting.
 * I think it is actually a fair idea that the content projects have some input and say on the meta-projects. --Barberio (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To make this clearer. Back when we went through the early stages of arbcom reform, we found, hey, most arbitrators and people supported many of the ideas proposed and personally used them already and thought most other people on arbcom did too. And then they discovered that, no, that wasn't uniform accepted standard by everyone else. And that's why we're now in the process of making those bits explicit in arbitration policy.
 * Even if you think that these ideas are already being followed, I assure you there will be a handful of OTRS volunteers who don't because they've never been explicitly told that was what they were supposed to do. --Barberio (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)