More stewards...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

More stewards...

Florence Devouard-3
Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.

Please see here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2

The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
removed.

The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.

Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
to do so the the board members?

There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
seems a little strange.

S

On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
>
> Please see here:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
>
> The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> removed.
>
> The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
>
> Ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Florence Devouard-3
Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)

/me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...

Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?

Ant


  Sean Whitton wrote:

> Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> to do so the the board members?
>
> There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> seems a little strange.
>
> S
>
> On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
>>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
>>
>>Please see here:
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
>>
>>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
>>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
>>removed.
>>
>>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
>>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
>>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
>>
>>Ant
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>[hidden email]
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
position.

I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
influence in certain situations.

Thanks,
S

On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
> office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
> Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
>
> /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
>
> Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
> things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
> new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
>
> Ant
>
>
>  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> > to do so the the board members?
> >
> > There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> > seems a little strange.
> >
> > S
> >
> > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
> >>
> >>Please see here:
> >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> >>
> >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> >>removed.
> >>
> >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
> >>
> >>Ant
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>foundation-l mailing list
> >>[hidden email]
> >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Brad Patrick
Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
individuals who are not yet 18 to run.

Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
who run for the Board.

Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.

On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> position.
>
> I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> influence in certain situations.
>
> Thanks,
> S
>
> On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
> > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
> > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> >
> > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> >
> > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
> > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
> > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> >
> > Ant
> >
> >
> >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> > > to do so the the board members?
> > >
> > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> > > seems a little strange.
> > >
> > > S
> > >
> > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
> > >>
> > >>Please see here:
> > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > >>
> > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> > >>removed.
> > >>
> > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
> > >>
> > >>Ant
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > >>[hidden email]
> > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
>                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
[hidden email]
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Erik Moeller-4
On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.

I'm not very comfortable with this at all. Wikimedia generally has a
track record of not being ageist in the assignment of community roles.
Please elaborate on the legal ramifications -- privately or publicly.
Perhaps we can identify those steward actions which could be legally
problematic, and those which aren't, and split the role accordingly?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Angela-5
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.

It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights
and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has
checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those
users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Gregory Maxwell
On 11/14/06, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights
> and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has
> checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those
> users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.

As an aside...
When did stewards stop being checkuser,etc on project not large enough
to have their own?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by Angela-5
Angela wrote:
>> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
>>> age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.
>
> It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights
> and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has
> checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those
> users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.
>

This includes Arbcom too then.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Jon Harald Søby
In reply to this post by Brad Patrick
(Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])

I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
"might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
the steward rôle since then.

If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
generally second Angela's post.

On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
>
> Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> who run for the Board.
>
> Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
>
> On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > position.
> >
> > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > influence in certain situations.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > S
> >
> > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status to do
> > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one mentionned
> > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > >
> > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > >
> > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not simplify
> > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example, after
> > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > >
> > > Ant
> > >
> > >
> > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really need
> > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > >
> > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not automatically
> > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming Jimbo
> > > > seems a little strange.
> > > >
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some stewards
> > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more stewards.
> > > >>
> > > >>Please see here:
> > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > >>
> > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards will be
> > > >>removed.
> > > >>
> > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment on
> > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may not be
> > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be reconfirmed.
> > > >>
> > > >>Ant
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > >>[hidden email]
> > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
> >                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Brad Patrick
> General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> [hidden email]
> 727-231-0101
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Best regards,
Jon Harald Søby

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - [hidden email]
Skype - jon.harald.soby
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

James Hare
I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if we
have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
anyways.

On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
>
> I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> the steward rôle since then.
>
> If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> generally second Angela's post.
>
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> >
> > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> > who run for the Board.
> >
> > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> >
> > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > > position.
> > >
> > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > influence in certain situations.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > S
> > >
> > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status
> to do
> > > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one
> mentionned
> > > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > > >
> > > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > > >
> > > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not
> simplify
> > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example,
> after
> > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > > >
> > > > Ant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really
> need
> > > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not
> automatically
> > > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming
> Jimbo
> > > > > seems a little strange.
> > > > >
> > > > > S
> > > > >
> > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some
> stewards
> > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more
> stewards.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Please see here:
> > > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards
> will be
> > > > >>removed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment
> on
> > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may
> not be
> > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be
> reconfirmed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Ant
> > > > >>
> > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > > >>[hidden email]
> > > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom
> is liberty
> > >                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brad Patrick
> > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > [hidden email]
> > 727-231-0101
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jon Harald Søby
>
> Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> MSN messenger - [hidden email]
> Skype - jon.harald.soby
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Surely all power really flows from the devs, using the stewards as a channel?

S

On 15/11/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if we
> have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
> anyways.
>
> On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
> >
> > I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> > "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> > candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> > reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> > and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> > the steward rôle since then.
> >
> > If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> > Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> > generally second Angela's post.
> >
> > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> > >
> > > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> > > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> > > who run for the Board.
> > >
> > > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> > >
> > > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > > > position.
> > > >
> > > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > > influence in certain situations.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > S
> > > >
> > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny
> > > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status
> > to do
> > > > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one
> > mentionned
> > > > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > > > >
> > > > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or they
> > > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their access.
> > > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not
> > simplify
> > > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example,
> > after
> > > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group (and
> > > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ant
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we really
> > need
> > > > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not
> > automatically
> > > > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming
> > Jimbo
> > > > > > seems a little strange.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > S
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some
> > stewards
> > > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more
> > stewards.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Please see here:
> > > > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one thing.
> > > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive stewards
> > will be
> > > > > >>removed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment
> > on
> > > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may
> > not be
> > > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be
> > reconfirmed.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Ant
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > >>[hidden email]
> > > > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom
> > is liberty
> > > >                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brad Patrick
> > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > [hidden email]
> > > 727-231-0101
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Jon Harald Søby
> >
> > Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> > Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> > MSN messenger - [hidden email]
> > Skype - jon.harald.soby
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
        —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
                [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: More stewards...

James Hare
Yeah, but that happens as often as Jimbo using his executive power.

On 11/15/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Surely all power really flows from the devs, using the stewards as a
> channel?
>
> S
>
> On 15/11/06, James Hare <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if
> we
> > have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
> > anyways.
> >
> > On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
> > >
> > > I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> > > "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> > > candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> > > reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> > > and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> > > the steward rôle since then.
> > >
> > > If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> > > Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> > > generally second Angela's post.
> > >
> > > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > > > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > > > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > > > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > > > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > > > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > > > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > > > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> > > >
> > > > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using
> only
> > > > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as
> persons
> > > > who run for the Board.
> > > >
> > > > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here)
> a
> > > > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that
> the
> > > > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind
> their
> > > > > position.
> > > > >
> > > > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be
> careful
> > > > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > > > influence in certain situations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > S
> > > > >
> > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that
> Danny
> > > > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the
> status
> > > to do
> > > > > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one
> > > mentionned
> > > > > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or
> they
> > > > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their
> access.
> > > > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not
> > > simplify
> > > > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For
> example,
> > > after
> > > > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group
> (and
> > > > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ant
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we
> really
> > > need
> > > > > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not
> > > automatically
> > > > > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that
> reconfirming
> > > Jimbo
> > > > > > > seems a little strange.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > S
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some
> > > stewards
> > > > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need
> more
> > > stewards.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Please see here:
> > > > > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one
> thing.
> > > > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive
> stewards
> > > will be
> > > > > > >>removed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please
> comment
> > > on
> > > > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates
> may
> > > not be
> > > > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be
> > > reconfirmed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Ant
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > >>[hidden email]
> > > > > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only
> wisdom
> > > is liberty
> > > > >                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) |
> xyrael.net
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brad Patrick
> > > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > 727-231-0101
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jon Harald Søby
> > >
> > > Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> > > Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> > > MSN messenger - [hidden email]
> > > Skype - jon.harald.soby
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
>         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is
> liberty
>                 [hidden email] (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l