{L37} and {L45} plus their various translations are actively used and do not have another process like the replacement for L2.

• L45 is required for VRT access and is handled by volunteers (VRT admins: acl*otrs-admins).
• L37 is required for anyone else that agrees to the ANPDP (CheckUsers, Oversighters, Stewards, etc.) and is processed by Trust-and-Safety to list accepted ones at ANPDP/N.

why we can't do the same signatures on a wiki somewhere

I don't see how you would appropriately control access on a wiki.

Adding project tags for areas affected

Here in Phabricator/Phorge we have the legalpad application which doesn't come from upstream but has once been developed for specific needs of WMF Legal.

Huh? The upstream instance at least has the legalpad application installed.

I was probably mistaken. It was enabled way back in T656 in the early days of Phabricator at WMF and started out on a Labs instance (T656#799769). It think WMF might have also paid Phacility for development / support back then but not sure, Quim would know. But that is what made me use that phrasing.

Here is some archeology about that and why I had this memory.

edit: It's like first there was Legalpad as a standalone service before we even used Phab for other things and then it turned into Phabricator as we use it now.

@Izno Wanna tell me what you dislike about it? Would there really be a difference whether people sign something here or on a wiki?

In T363009#9731654, @Dzahn wrote:

@Izno Wanna tell me what you dislike about it? Would there really be a difference whether people sign something here or on a wiki?

JJMC already pointed out the issues.

I don't see how you would appropriately control access on a wiki.

Given that any wiki user can login on Phabricator is there a difference I'm missing?

edit: Oh, you don't mean to prevent people from signing the doc, you mean to prevent people from changing the doc that is being signed?

Well, probably by locking down the document page so only admins or stewards can edit it while keeping the signatures on the talk page or something like that? Just like with other important templates etc?

In T363009#9736975, @Dzahn wrote:

I don't see how you would appropriately control access on a wiki.

Given that any wiki user can login on Phabricator is there a difference I'm missing?

edit: Oh, you don't mean to prevent people from signing the doc, you mean to prevent people from changing the doc that is being signed?

Well, probably by locking down the document page so only admins or stewards can edit it while keeping the signatures on the talk page or something like that? Just like with other important templates etc?

No, not preventing edits to the agreement text. Page protection would solve that.

Legalpad creates an immutable, non-public record that can only be entered by the user that is logged in.

A signature on a wiki could be added, modified, or removed by anyone. IANAL, but I don't see how that would be acceptable.

Ah, so the point is mostly that it should not be public information who signed the agreement?

re: modifying: Sure, but they can't entirely delete/oversight an entire revision and we could just link to that. Also doesn't seem like we see this as a problem with any statement in talk page discussions.

re: IANAL - Me neither but the actual lawyers said to not go through Legalpad for their purposes.

But I hear you, thanks for the input.

In T363009#9738629, @JJMC89 wrote:>

No, not preventing edits to the agreement text. Page protection would solve that.

Legalpad creates an immutable, non-public record that can only be entered by the user that is logged in.

A signature on a wiki could be added, modified, or removed by anyone. IANAL, but I don't see how that would be acceptable.

If a agreement requires non changing signatures when dealing with private information, It might be worth while reviewing the current method/situation with legal and see if they want to move it to the same process as NDAs using their signing system.