Anders Wegge Jakobsen wrote:
Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com writes:
...
We need to have one or two people specifically named, so as to be able to say "please, talk to xxx" and to be *sure* a case is taken into consideration (as opposed to "but I thought someone else was taking care of this").
Any volunteers ?
Any idea what the workload would be? Are we talking few cases a month, or several each day? In the first case, I'd be happy to help, but in the second, I may run out of time.
oh, goodness. A few cases a month at best ! (well, at least for now).
And .. global checkuser oversight needs trust on a pretty high level. Are you sure it would not be better to "appoint" a couple of stewards?
Technically, the person would need to be given checkuser access on all projects/language to have access to logs.
I would consider a requirement that the person gives his/her real name (at the minimum to the board, publicly would be much better).
I think people can candidate, and the board could appoint. Editors are naturally invited to mention their support or oppose on candidates (if one candidate looks inappropriate to you, please mention it).
Stewards are naturally invited to volunteer, but I would not necessarily limit the choice to them.
Note that this does not result in a board decision prior-hand. This comes from the fact I usually find myself doing it, and failing to do it well due in great part to a lack of time. Angela does not want to get involved in checkuser matters. Hence my tentative delegation ;-)
ant