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 foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.

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 <sean(a)silentflame.com> 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 <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that Danny > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the status

> > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one

> > 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

> > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For example,

> > 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

> > > to do so the the board members? > > > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not

> > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that reconfirming

> > > seems a little strange. > > > > > > S > > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some

> > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need more

> > >> > > >>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

> > >>removed. > > >> > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please comment

> > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates may

> > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be

> > >> > > >>Ant > > >> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>foundation-l mailing list > > >>foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > -- > —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom

-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if

have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad, anyways. On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby(a)gmail.com> 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 <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com> 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

> > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as

> > who run for the Board. > > > > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation. > > > > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <sean(a)silentflame.com> wrote: > > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here)

> > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and > > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that

> > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the > > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind

> > > position. > > > > > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be

> > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an > > > influence in certain situations. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > S > > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that

> > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the

> 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

> > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their

> > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not > simplify > > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For

> after > > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group

> > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ? > > > > > > > > Ant > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we

> 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

> Jimbo > > > > > seems a little strange. > > > > > > > > > > S > > > > > > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some > stewards > > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need

> 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

> > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive

> will be > > > > >>removed. > > > > >> > > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please

> on > > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates

> not be > > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be > reconfirmed. > > > > >> > > > > >>Ant > > > > >> > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > > >>foundation-l mailing list > > > > >>foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org > > > > >>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only

> is liberty > > > sean(a)silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) |

_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l