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 Anthere9@yahoo.com 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 foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l