What has been done can be undone no problem. As far as I'm concerned,
I'd rather be removed from the steward list the necessary time for the
board to get to a decision quietly, even if it means that - at the end
of it - it decides not to grant me the steward rights (for instance
because I had a weaker support than others or because there is no need
for such a bunch of new ones). At any rate, I'm not feeling at ease to
give a hand to the projects, as a second rate steward, a <tag>not
approved</tag> one. Just my POV.
villy ~~JC
2006/1/12, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>om>:
Hi
Actually...
it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve
all the mentionned candidates.
Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be
best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really
matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections
rules AND be polite to us.
------
Aside from this
I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of
current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several
have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But
it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards
and might wish to change their minds with them.
Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use
of checkuser rights.
Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the
Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on
who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So,
these populations should be different.
Anthere
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l