Talk:Members Bill of Rights
From BeVolunteer Wiki
This page has been moved to the the BeWelcome wiki and locked from further editing.
See BW Wiki: Talk:Members Bill of Rights
my edits are copying the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web. See: http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ I think they're relevant. - jared
- Thanks! When I saw this page in the recent changes I was thinking "I should copy from that page". :) BTW, you can sign your wiki comments with ~~~~. guakaBW, wikitalk 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not fully understood what kind of legal status this Bill of Rights should have in the end. However if it will/should be more than just a couple nice words we have to be careful not to get into legal trouble with what we "grant as a right". We have to carefully examine this and make sure that the "rights" are in line with our procedures and change the procedures or the rights according.
- BV could legally adopt the bill of rights by "ratification", the same way countries can ratify agreements like "human rights". This means, in practice, that while we might not always be completely compliant, we'd need to be able to show that we're doing everything we can to make BV adhere to the bill. I very much doubt that this will cause difficult legal implications for us. Most of the comments below are about practical issues, but a bill of rights is much more about intent. --Tgoorden 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- (4) - Right now only members of BeVolunteer have a real right to participate in the decision making process and there are some requirements to match to become a member.
- True, but the possibility exists to join in the decision making. We do have to think about the requirements of becoming an official member though, a few adjustments might be necessary. --Tgoorden 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- (5) - I would not like to be legally responsible for the safety of a member. Imho the safety is the members own responsibility.
- That's why it also states: "I understand my personal responsibility in providing this safety for others members as well." But, perhaps we can word the first sentence a bit differently. The point is that we, as an organization, should do what we can to make it as safe as possible. --Tgoorden 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- (6) - This (modify,share,hide) asks for a very sophisticated technical implementation that we will not be able to provide in the near future. Although I agree in general I would limit it to own/add/delete
- Most of this is already possible (except export, but I think there's a draft XMl export page). You can hide/modify/share all of your personal details (like name and address) already, right? --Tgoorden 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- (7) - Right now we do NOT allow people to see the code that is actually running the code but only the (pretty much identical) code that is under development.
- Again, I believe the intent is much more important here. It doesn't say "live" code, but it's clear that we shouldn't have any hidden functionality, which is precisely why this right is there. Also, right now right nr 5 justifies holding back a little to ensure we don't expose security risks until the code is stable enough. --Tgoorden 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
1- I included "Political and Religion" in "socio-cultural background." ? 3(optional extended to 4 and 7)- I'm in the opinion that can only apply to (verified members) to be sure that is one physical person (in case of community profiles, one representation) to prevent abuse, distortion or even take over; in the hypothetical case, use boots/others to manipulate several profiles. (may be to paranoid). -I do recommend to make explicit that BW will work to carry out this bill, but can't accept any responsibility. - Sorry my ignorance. Can be explain the picture on the video, 2.08min, please? -About the adds: BW could intend to exist without adds, but can't warranty. --Peregri 08:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
