1. Are they INT-staff (like the Review Team)? — Y:1/N:6/?:0
   • If they are, will new members that are not already INT-staff have to be approved by the Primary Contact of their branch? — Y:3/N:0/?:4
   • If not, are they under supervision of INT-staff? — Y:6/N:0/?:1
     • Are they a part of INT at all? — Y:3/N:1/?:3
   • Do they get access to #staff_discussion on Discord? — Y:2/N:4/?:1
   • May they take part in discussions (not voting)? — Y:2/N:0/?:1/Tech-stuff:4
2. Do they get one or more Team Captains? — Y:7/N:0/?:0
   • If they are not staff, does the TC have to be INT-staff? — Y:1/N:2/?:4
3. Do they get a section in the INT-O5-Wiki or do they have to create an own Wiki? — Section:7/Own Wiki:0/?:0
4. Do they get a public and a non-public channel in INT's Discord like the RT? — Y:7/N:0/?:0
   • Do they also get a fancy color to be easier to identify? — Y:7/N:0/?:0

If they are, will new members that are not already INT-staff have to be approved by the Primary Contact of their branch?

Something like this will probably have to be done to ensure credibility.

If not, are they under supervision of INT-staff?

They should be supervised but for big projects a level of autonomy would be essential.

Are they a part of INT at all?

Yes.

Do they get access to #staff_discussion on Discord?

Definitely, I would make a channel for them like review has too.

May they take part in discussions (not voting)?

Definitely.

Do they get one or more Team Captains?

One should be sufficient for overall operations, perhaps we could designate sub captains for big projects when the time comes.

Do they get a section in the INT-O5-Wiki or do they have to create an own Wiki?

A section of the existing site seems more practical.

Do they get a public and a non-public channel in INT's Discord like the RT?

Why not?

Do they also get a fancy color to be easier to identify?

Nothing wrong with a little mark of status.

• yes
• n/a
  • n/a
• Yes, but no "staff" role.
• Yes

2. Depends of them. If they want one, then one shall it be.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

• Yes.

Will try to elaborate/ discuss in free time.

1. Nope, but only because I don't want to expand the role even further, as that would kind of go against the meaning of having an administrative role at all if a significant amount of the people in the server is staff. Come to think of it, why is the Review Team staff?
   • Yes, approval necessary. It is a great power after all.
   • I'd prefer as well that these people would join -INT.
   • No access to the staff channel.
   • They will be called to express their opinions about tech problems only.
2. Team Captains are good. One should suffice.
   • That may help coordination/communication, but only if the whole team is an -INT member, otherwise no.
3. Section of the O5 Command. Restricted access tho.
4. Yes.
   • Yay colours (yes).

1. No. As stated above by Grom, they're members of the Tech Team, but not INT-Staff.
   • Yes, the Tech Team should be under supervision of at least one "real" Staff-member (if said Staff-member is already member of the Tech Team, this would solve itself).
     • Not necessarily, even if I personally would prefer that members of the INT-Tech Team at least join INT.
   • As they're not Staff, no.
   • Yes. As the Tech Team is (or will) be specialized in dealing with tech-stuff, it can provide support in certain situations.
2. Yes, even though it depends on the size and current ongoing projects of the Tech Team.
   • No.
3. Section.
   • I do not exactly know how WikiDots user-access-system works, but I would try to limit the access of non-Staff-members to the specific section.
   • In favor of special category and the listed things, including the theme.
4. Yes.
   • Colors are cool. (Yes)

1. No, they are not. Yet they are no normal users. They are the Tech-Team. Members of an official collaborative INT-Project.
   • As such they do not get access to #staff_discussion on Discord, as their work is not related to INT itself and they should not have a saying in staff-discussions that do not touch technology.
2. If they want to, but they do not have to be INT-staff already.
   • The TC(s) also do not become INT-staff if they are not yet.
   • Users that want to join should be checked by representatives of their branch first.
3. They get a section on the INT-O5-Wiki that is in a special category.
   • They get a Forum section on INT and INT-O5.
   • I'm in favor of giving them an own colored header and an own symbol.
4. They get a public and non-public channel on the Discord and a fancy color.

The team would be specialized on web-Technology, like Wikidot-magic, Wiki-creation, Bots and Bot creation, APIs, Scripts etc.

There are a few things to think about:

1. Are they INT-staff (like the Review Team)?
   • If they are, will new members that are not already INT-staff have to be approved by the Primary Contact of their branch?
   • If not, are they under supervision of INT-staff?
     • Are they a part of INT at all?
   • Do they get access to #staff_discussion on Discord?
   • May they take part in discussions (not voting)?
2. Do they get one or more Team Captains?
   • If they are not staff, does the TC have to be INT-staff?
3. Do they get a section in the INT-O5-Wiki or do they have to create an own Wiki?
   • If they get an own Wiki, the steps above are obsolete.
   • If they get a section on INT-O5, their non-staff-members, if there are any, will get access to the INT-O5-Wiki.
   • If they get a section on INT-O5 it could be put in a special category, so visual gimmickry like an own theme, but also certain userrights can be established.
4. Do they get a public and a non-public channel in INT's Discord like the RT?
   • Do they also get a fancy color to be easier to identify?

Enabling API-access is necessary for the snippet to show links to pages in Japanese on other branches, because with API-access the snippet can check if the page exists on JP.

I got what you want to do. But, I can't get reason why you want to do.
What will SCP-JP get if SCP-JP introduce it?

Write access can potentially be dangerous. For example, it can be used to quickly remove or blank all pages in the wiki (again, it's possible to do that via scripts without API too, but it's more easy with API access). That's why I recommend enabling only read access for members and limiting write access to administrators.

Basically, each branch admins should verify that they have read-access enabled for members ("Manage site" > "Security" > "API") and accept my membership request.

Current status:

• scp-wiki — OK
• scp-ru — OK
• scp-wiki-de — OK
• scp-pl — OK
• fondationscp — OK
• scp-kr — OK
• scp-wiki-cn — OK
• lafundacionscp — OK
• scp-jp — OK
• scp-th — OK
• fondazionescp — OK

http://scpfoundation.ru/forum/t-3475761/po-povodu-izmenenia-licenzii-cast-vtoraa

I understand the frustrations expressed by SCP-RU staff in this post and hope that, in time, true reconciliation can be completed. Regardless I am extremely happy this has been resolved and we encourage all sites which have withdrawn recognition of SCP-RU to renew it as soon as possible.

Consultations with the lawyers are now complete and we're going to make final official statement regarding licensing issues in a few days.

So looks like we'll be hearing from them shortly. :)

I am, quite frankly, getting tired at the fact that we don't hear anything from them. Hasn't this been going on since like, April-May? I know I've consistently argued to give them more time, but now we've been waiting for over a quarter of a year. Considering that EN's license is at stake here, I feel that it's time to take some action if they haven't responded by the end of this month.

Now I'm not familiar with how these sorts of legal proceedings work, whether in my country or in others, but it just seems a little bit weird to have to wait over four months just to get an opinion from someone comparing legal texts…