Help
Add this page to your book
Show book (0 pages)
Suggest pagesTalk:OTRS/volunteering
|
|
Contents |
[edit] A note about the volunteering page
I've noticed an uptick in questions for volunteer applicants and support/opposition statements from other Wikimedians on the volunteering page.
Access to OTRS is granted by the admins at our discretion, sometimes with brief private discussion, sometimes prolonged discussion, and sometimes with no discussion. It is appreciated that others can contribute their views on the merits of a volunteer in answering emails. We read the page and process after extensive review, which does include these comments. What we need to remember is that OTRS is a different city from the other Wikimedia projects. We don't have up down votes, consensus, or a general policy about acceptance other than being at least sixteen years of age. Questions about experience in controversial topics and/or content does not necessarily relate to OTRS effectiveness.
Consumer relations is what OTRS is about. This can be measured by experience in working with new users and strangers to Wikimedia that took the time to participate when they don't know how to on-wiki (or sometimes do, to ill ends). It's talking to the outside world, and has little regard to internal politics and debate experience. Additionally, while we wave the scary finger about applying it is for good reason: people burn out. If you don't, you're not answering enough tickets :) . The demon is in the volume versus cost of investment, not the nastiness that relatively very few emails contain. Tickets can take months of emails to respond to until conclusion when on-wiki you could have made 5,000 edits.
Long story short: let's keep this page succinct. Keegan 05:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Identification to the Foundation
Currently OTRS members do not need to provide identification am I right? So I think it is time to remove 'Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, or willing to identify if your account is approved, per the access to nonpublic data policy'.--Bencmq 15:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that would be a bad idea. "Willing to identify" is probably the right current requirement, because if identification is required, then they must change their minds or resign. Better to only select users who are willing to meet future/proposed requirements when it comes to that. Jclemens 18:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- The reason why I suggested the change was that many would believe it is the current requirement. Maybe change it to 'willing to identify if required' would clear the confusion. But yes. It wound't do any bad to leave it as it is. --Bencmq 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. It was saying "identified" because for a little bit, users were required to identify. That little change has been undone, so they just have to be "willing to identify", if it's necessary at a later date. Thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 01:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- The reason why I suggested the change was that many would believe it is the current requirement. Maybe change it to 'willing to identify if required' would clear the confusion. But yes. It wound't do any bad to leave it as it is. --Bencmq 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Just a reminder...
...The page is starting to look a bit like RFA candidacies. I believe it turns up the heat and this may not be such a good thing. NonvocalScream 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] UK OTRS workshop
Hey. If you would be interested in participating in a UK-based OTRS workshop, then please sign up at wmuk:OTRS workshop. Thanks. Mike Peel 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
