Talk:Donor Privacy Policy/Revision: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(replies to Jon) |
Victuallers (talk | contribs) (bit of muzak?) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
: Professional staff - no, but it's good to have the extra word in there to convey confidence in the staff. ;-) | : Professional staff - no, but it's good to have the extra word in there to convey confidence in the staff. ;-) | ||
: Government departments - I assume you're meaning "Reporting to applicable government agencies as required by law"? This is just a statement of fact, not one that gives us extra rights with that data - if we were legally required to report to MI5, then we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, but if we're not then that statement wouldn't let us share the data. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | : Government departments - I assume you're meaning "Reporting to applicable government agencies as required by law"? This is just a statement of fact, not one that gives us extra rights with that data - if we were legally required to report to MI5, then we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, but if we're not then that statement wouldn't let us share the data. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
*Did we copy this from somewhere? It seems to have marketing spin and redundant text (e.g. professional staff, | |||
"we may update this doc", "To provide donors the best possible experience". The last one sounds like "have a nice day" or something from Doors Inc in Hitchhikers Guide. IMO [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:54, 18 March 2012
Do we have any staff who are NOT professional?
It seems a lot denser and perhaps less accessible as a result but I expect the sort of people who read this won't be put off.
Wonder whether 'Government departments' is to wide. We supply to HMRC in effect. If MI5 wanted our data we would be unhappy about this.
Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Professional staff - no, but it's good to have the extra word in there to convey confidence in the staff. ;-)
- Government departments - I assume you're meaning "Reporting to applicable government agencies as required by law"? This is just a statement of fact, not one that gives us extra rights with that data - if we were legally required to report to MI5, then we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, but if we're not then that statement wouldn't let us share the data. Mike Peel (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Did we copy this from somewhere? It seems to have marketing spin and redundant text (e.g. professional staff,
"we may update this doc", "To provide donors the best possible experience". The last one sounds like "have a nice day" or something from Doors Inc in Hitchhikers Guide. IMO Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)