Yeah, but that happens as often as Jimbo using his executive power.
On 11/15/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
Surely all power really flows from the devs, using the stewards as a channel?
S
On 15/11/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if
we
have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad, anyways.
On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@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@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
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@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@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
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 >> > > >
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only
wisdom
is liberty
sean@silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) |xyrael.net
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Best regards, Jon Harald Søby
Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/ Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs MSN messenger - jhsoby@gmail.com Skype - jon.harald.soby _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty sean@silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l