User talk:TParis/Arbcom RFC 2013

Loaded questions
The main issue that I have with this RFC is the way that everything is phrased - this is really coming off as a pitchfork mob rather than an objective and unbiased RFC. This is basically "And have you stopped beating your wife?" Also, the premise behind "Functionaries often protect more information than what is required by the privacy policy" is flawed, because as a non-functionary you do not have access to the "why" certain information is protected, and most of the voters do not either, leading them to make completely uninformed decisions. --Rschen7754 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "because as a non-functionary you do not have access to the "why" certain information is protected" - Logical fallacy. Functionaries create the condition by which they are protected.  You are welcome to change the wording questions.  Right now, I am just getting them out of my head.--v/r - TP 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Functionaries create the condition by which they are protected." - another good example of a loaded statement, without evidence. And I won't be assisting in this RFC, because I do not believe in its premise at all. --Rschen7754 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that evidence could be ascertained. Unfortunately, I'm not a functionary and I am not privileged to that.--v/r - TP 00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

request
could you (TP) or someone please notify me when this gets moved or goes live? I've watchlisted for now, but just in case I miss the move. I don't believe it would be considered "canvassing" if I request such notification. — Ched : ?  00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I sure will. I'm going to spend about a month refining the issues to be less "loaded" but I'll let you know when I'm ready to move forward.--v/r - TP 00:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Same for me - was musing on commenting on hte page but may as well keep it for a proper venue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts
Two thoughts, on noticing this after reading Ched's newest note to your talk page:
 * 1) It looks like this is still in the drafting stage, but at the same time, there are people "voting" as if it were a finished product. I would suggest you try to draw clear line between the drafting and voting stages if you intend to send this live at some point - now is the time for planning, then is the time for signing names to RfC positions people support. Sending live an RfC that's already pre-voted is going to look very strange, indeed.
 * 2) The questions as you currently have them drafted are sort of iffy. Some examples:
 * Some questions are very, very general, to the point that I don't think many useful conclusions could be drawn from them - for instance, a "this is a concern" vote on "What is the scope of the Arbcom mailing list" says only "yes, what is the scope of the arbcom mailing list?", but not "The scope is currently X, and I think it should be Y," or even "I'm concerned about the scope appearing to be X". More useful would be a set of more exacting questions like "Should arbitrators be allowed to use the mailing list for discussions not involving private information" and "should discussions on the arbcom mailing list be freely disclosable if they [are outside the mailing list's scope|do not involve private information|involve Newyorkbrad making Monty Python jokes]".
 * Other questions are quite leading - "Are functionaries given the authority to protect information not identified in the privacy policy?", for example, carries with it the implication that such a thing is happening currently (the same way that "Is it ok that Fluffernutter kicks puppies?" would imply that I've already got my chihuahua-puntin' boots on) and would be more neutrally phrased as "What information does the the enwp version of the privacy policy dictate must be kept hidden" or "Is the extent to which functionaries protect certain types of information (which?) consistent with the enwp version of the privacy policy".

In general, while I think the idea of an RfC on some of these key issues is a useful one, I also think you really need to solicit some outside, less-opinionated input on composing such an RfC, to avoid coming up with questions that are either too general or too pointed. The focus here should be on questions/discussion points that will yield concrete, actionable information about what the community does and doesn't want to see, not on giving people generalities or assumptions to agree/disagree with without any solutions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I took his focus with whole "voting" idea as more of a 'what do people think is important to consider for more detailed work' as opposed to an end product.
 * As for outside opinion, I guess that depends on what you consider outside. Most long-term players in this stuff are so deeply invested in policy that I'm not sure they can really look at it objectively any longer. That might be why a question that appears to me to be relatively benign (such as the functionary question quoted above) and looking to simply determine public scope would appear to others as being pointed, leading or hostile. I'm not vested in the current system, so to me it makes sense to have a clear, concise, understandable version of these things out there. Obviously others may not agree with that assessment of either the situation or the nature of the questions. That's fine, but trying to restrict the idea right out of the gate or smother it with talk about actionable information (which leads to endless debates about what information is useful or valid, let alone if it's actionable or not) will (from what I've seen of the dynamics around here) likely lead to the whole idea stalling out and the current situation continuing on without modification.
 * Just my take. Agree or not, it's all the same. I'd just like to thank TP for attempting to address this issue. Intothatdarkness 21:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside input is definitely welcome. I'm actually looking for some co-drafters.  I threw out some feelers on both sides of the isle but none of them came back as wanting to dive right in with me but would rather take a cautious interest in which made me question some of my own assumptions.  Iridesent's and Rschen's comments made me realize that I was taking too bold an approach even in the draft so I had to cut back my wording.  Apparently if you write "Arbcom" on someone's talk page, you draw pretty immediate attention.  I've already tainted this RFC but making my own perceptions so bold in the hopes that someone on the other side of the isle would work with me to find more neutral ground in the questions and apparently that hasn't happened.  You're comments are very helpful though.--v/r - TP 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)