Steward elections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
66 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Steward elections

Majorly
This is a very informal notice that elections for new stewards are due to
commence on 26 November. Candidates may nominate themselves from today:
please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2007 for
instructions, and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Application_guidelines for who can
apply. In brief, you must be above the age of 18 on the final day of the
election (16th December), have an account on Meta-Wiki, and be willing to
identify yourself to the Foundation.

Anyone with three or more months experience on any project may vote or
stand, as long as there is a link between their Meta account and their main
project account.

As well as electing new stewards, the current ones are also being
reconfirmed, as is steward policy. Current stewards should write something
in their candidate page if they haven't already.

Thanks for your time.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

Nicolò Zamperini-3

> As well as electing new stewards, the current ones are also being
> reconfirmed, as is steward policy. Current stewards should write something
> in their candidate page if they haven't already.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> --
> Alex (Majorly)

Here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm

--
Nicolò Zamperini (Nick1915)

Wikimedia Italia
Associazione per la diffusione della conoscenza libera


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

Re: Steward elections

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Majorly
2007/11/12, Majorly <[hidden email]>:
> This is a very informal notice that elections for new stewards are due to
> commence on 26 November. Candidates may nominate themselves from today:
> please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2007 for
> instructions, and
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Application_guidelines for who can
> apply. In brief, you must be above the age of 18 on the final day of the
> election (16th December), have an account on Meta-Wiki, and be willing to
> identify yourself to the Foundation.

I'm considering nominating, but I have an issue with one of the
guidelines: "Don't change rights on your own project" - what counts as
your 'own' project here? Depending on the definition this could either
mean nothing (no project is of one person) or forbid me from doing
anything on Wikipedia (I have a user page on almost all languages).
The remark that this also holds for members of local arbitration
committees makes me think it's closer to the first, and then I really
wonder why this rule exists - if the definition of 'own project' is so
narrow that people can be a member of the arbitration committee on a
project that's not their own project, then what people are there who
_do_ have a project that would be called their own project?

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels

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

Re: Steward elections

Guillaume Paumier
On Nov 12, 2007 4:31 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm considering nominating, but I have an issue with one of the
> guidelines: "Don't change rights on your own project" - what counts as
> your 'own' project here? Depending on the definition this could either
> mean nothing (no project is of one person) or forbid me from doing
> anything on Wikipedia (I have a user page on almost all languages).
> The remark that this also holds for members of local arbitration
> committees makes me think it's closer to the first, and then I really
> wonder why this rule exists - if the definition of 'own project' is so
> narrow that people can be a member of the arbitration committee on a
> project that's not their own project, then what people are there who
> _do_ have a project that would be called their own project?


"Own project" means "home project". This is a very strong policy for
stewards to prevent them from changing rights of a user on the project where
they are the most active, unless this user requests it explicitely. I'm sure
you understand that this policy is necessary to avoid bias.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
imagined." Henry David Thoreau
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

Pedro Sanchez-2
On Nov 12, 2007 9:38 AM, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> "Own project" means "home project". This is a very strong policy for
> stewards to prevent them from changing rights of a user on the project where
> they are the most active, unless this user requests it explicitely. I'm sure
> you understand that this policy is necessary to avoid bias.
>

The project where you regularly stay editing and performing non meta-tasks
having an userpage only doesn't make it your home project

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

Re: Steward elections

geni
In reply to this post by Nicolò Zamperini-3
On 12/11/2007, Nicolò Zamperini <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > As well as electing new stewards, the current ones are also being
> > reconfirmed, as is steward policy. Current stewards should write something
> > in their candidate page if they haven't already.
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > --
> > Alex (Majorly)
>
> Here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm
>
> --
> Nicolò Zamperini (Nick1915)
>
> Wikimedia Italia
> Associazione per la diffusione della conoscenza libera

Jimbo isn't listed.


--
geni

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

Re: Steward elections

Teun Spaans
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier
This sounds like a rather vague rule to me.
I dont consider nomination, but i'm most regularly activbe on 3 projects. I
dont consider anyone  especially as my home project.
How should i choose between them?\

Wouldnt is be better to change the rule into something like: on all projects
where the steward is active more than once a day on average?



2007/11/12, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]>:

>
> On Nov 12, 2007 4:31 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm considering nominating, but I have an issue with one of the
> > guidelines: "Don't change rights on your own project" - what counts as
> > your 'own' project here? Depending on the definition this could either
> > mean nothing (no project is of one person) or forbid me from doing
> > anything on Wikipedia (I have a user page on almost all languages).
> > The remark that this also holds for members of local arbitration
> > committees makes me think it's closer to the first, and then I really
> > wonder why this rule exists - if the definition of 'own project' is so
> > narrow that people can be a member of the arbitration committee on a
> > project that's not their own project, then what people are there who
> > _do_ have a project that would be called their own project?
>
>
> "Own project" means "home project". This is a very strong policy for
> stewards to prevent them from changing rights of a user on the project
> where
> they are the most active, unless this user requests it explicitely. I'm
> sure
> you understand that this policy is necessary to avoid bias.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
> imagined." Henry David Thoreau
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

John Reaves
In reply to this post by geni
See the talk page, I think Jimbo is "for life".

--John Reaves

>
>
> Jimbo isn't listed.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

geni
On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> See the talk page,

Doesn't appear to be mentioned

--
geni

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

Re: Steward elections

John Reaves
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29

On Nov 12, 2007 2:46 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > See the talk page,
>
> Doesn't appear to be mentioned
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

Pedro Sanchez-2
In reply to this post by Teun Spaans
On Nov 12, 2007 1:22 PM, teun spaans <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This sounds like a rather vague rule to me.
> I dont consider nomination, but i'm most regularly activbe on 3 projects. I
> dont consider anyone  especially as my home project.
> How should i choose between them?\
>
> Wouldnt is be better to change the rule into something like: on all projects
> where the steward is active more than once a day on average?

If you're regularly active on those 3 projects, then acting there
would lead to potential conflict of interest, so you're asked not to
act as steward on them. It's not much more complicated than that

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

Re: Steward elections

Katie Chan
In reply to this post by Teun Spaans
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 20:22 +0100, teun spaans wrote:

> This sounds like a rather vague rule to me.
> I dont consider nomination, but i'm most regularly activbe on 3 projects. I
> dont consider anyone  especially as my home project.
> How should i choose between them?\
>
> Wouldnt is be better to change the rule into something like: on all projects
> where the steward is active more than once a day on average?
>
> 2007/11/12, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]>:
> > "Own project" means "home project". This is a very strong policy for
> > stewards to prevent them from changing rights of a user on the project
> > where
> > they are the most active, unless this user requests it explicitely. I'm
> > sure
> > you understand that this policy is necessary to avoid bias.
If you read "home projects" instead of "home project" (i.e. plural),
then the intended meaning would be the same. On average active more than
X time a day is equally arbitrary. One would hope any elected stewards
will have the common sense to know what the rule intended them not to
do.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

geni
In reply to this post by John Reaves
On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
>

So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?

--
geni

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

Re: Steward elections

David Gerard-2
On 12/11/2007, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29

> So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
> stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?


I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
querulous on this point.


- d.

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

Re: Steward elections

geni
On 12/11/2007, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/11/2007, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
>
> > So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
> > stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?
>
>
> I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
> querulous on this point.

As and until we Jimbo make meaningfully accountable to someone or he
stops acting outside accepted community norms no.


--
geni

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

Re: Steward elections

Effe iets anders
In reply to this post by Teun Spaans
If you consider three projects to be your home project, you shouldn't
edit rights on those projects as a steward :) I think that stewards
should more or less be able to determine for themselves what their
home projects are, and where confusion of roles comes into play.

BR, Eia

2007/11/12, teun spaans <[hidden email]>:

> This sounds like a rather vague rule to me.
> I dont consider nomination, but i'm most regularly activbe on 3 projects. I
> dont consider anyone  especially as my home project.
> How should i choose between them?\
>
> Wouldnt is be better to change the rule into something like: on all projects
> where the steward is active more than once a day on average?
>
>
>
> 2007/11/12, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > On Nov 12, 2007 4:31 PM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm considering nominating, but I have an issue with one of the
> > > guidelines: "Don't change rights on your own project" - what counts as
> > > your 'own' project here? Depending on the definition this could either
> > > mean nothing (no project is of one person) or forbid me from doing
> > > anything on Wikipedia (I have a user page on almost all languages).
> > > The remark that this also holds for members of local arbitration
> > > committees makes me think it's closer to the first, and then I really
> > > wonder why this rule exists - if the definition of 'own project' is so
> > > narrow that people can be a member of the arbitration committee on a
> > > project that's not their own project, then what people are there who
> > > _do_ have a project that would be called their own project?
> >
> >
> > "Own project" means "home project". This is a very strong policy for
> > stewards to prevent them from changing rights of a user on the project
> > where
> > they are the most active, unless this user requests it explicitely. I'm
> > sure
> > you understand that this policy is necessary to avoid bias.
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > [[m:User:guillom]]
> > "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have
> > imagined." Henry David Thoreau
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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

Re: Steward elections

Comet styles
In reply to this post by geni
Jimbo,Brion Vibber, RobChurch, Kate and Tom Starling are exempted from
confirmation since they are part of the group of wikimedians with a
bigger task of improving wikimedia and they would need the tools from
time to time and not always and its wiser to let them keep it and they
may not use it rather then to take it away from them and they wont be
able to use it when and if they need it... (O_o)

On Nov 13, 2007 10:07 AM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/11/2007, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 12/11/2007, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
> >
> > > So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
> > > stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?
> >
> >
> > I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
> > querulous on this point.
>
> As and until we Jimbo make meaningfully accountable to someone or he
> stops acting outside accepted community norms no.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Cometstyles

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

Re: Steward elections

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by geni
On Nov 12, 2007 2:07 PM, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/11/2007, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 12/11/2007, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
> >
> > > So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
> > > stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?
> >
> >
> > I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
> > querulous on this point.
>
> As and until we Jimbo make meaningfully accountable to someone or he
> stops acting outside accepted community norms no.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I think Jimmy is more accountable than that.

I think that if you got a large group of respected contributors together and
made a coherent case to Jimmy that he was outside community norms and
causing problems, he would change his mind.

I don't think that you have a large group of people who can coherently
articulate that case.  This is not the place to fight about it, until you
meet the required prerequisite.

If you want to try putting that case together, please let me know off-list,
so I can see what your points are in detail.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Steward elections

geni
In reply to this post by Comet styles
On 12/11/2007, Comet styles <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jimbo,Brion Vibber, RobChurch, Kate and Tom Starling are exempted from
> confirmation since they are part of the group of wikimedians with a
> bigger task of improving wikimedia

Nice try but mediawiki and wikimedia are two different things.
RobChurch isn't a steward in any case.

> and they would need the tools from
> time to time and not always and its wiser to let them keep it and they
> may not use it rather then to take it away from them and they wont be
> able to use it when and if they need it... (O_o)

Everyone you listed there except Jimbo is a developer. Taking steward
away from them would have zero practical impact because they can do
exactly the same things and more through direct database edits
including making themselves stewards again.


--
geni

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

Re: Steward elections

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
I stopped counting after 20 objections to Jimbo's use of steward  
tools in the "Initial discussions" section alone. Most were from  
respected admins, all certainly respectable contributors to the project.

I'm pretty sure I could find 50 if I really cared to check (Which I  
don't. I know where I stand on the subject, and I know the likelyhood  
of getting my way on this is nil.)  How big is a big enough group?  
What is the required prerequisite? Where is it listed?

I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think this is going to  
happen right now, just like we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought  
world peace is possible right now. Despite it being a blatant  
violation of stewardship rules, Jimmy won't step down (from the  
stewardship) unless he feels like he did something wrong. He doesn't  
feel that way, despite our massed frustration we expressed. Nobody  
can MAKE him step down. So basically, it's time to move onwards. Pick  
and choose your battles.

Dan Rosenthal

On Nov 12, 2007, at 5:40 PM, George Herbert wrote:

>
> I think Jimmy is more accountable than that.
>
> I think that if you got a large group of respected contributors  
> together and
> made a coherent case to Jimmy that he was outside community norms and
> causing problems, he would change his mind.
>
> I don't think that you have a large group of people who can coherently
> articulate that case.  This is not the place to fight about it,  
> until you
> meet the required prerequisite.
>
> If you want to try putting that case together, please let me know  
> off-list,
> so I can see what your points are in detail.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234