On 1/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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.
Okay, I have to agree I didn't wait for you - Angela and Jimbo
confirmed the 9 new Stewards, and seeing that you were interested
earlier in the election and didn't comment on any candidate, I thought
you won't have any doubts to any of them.
Well, I was just being bold, to make a long story short. I agree, I
should've waited for you to reply. Because of my behaviour, sorry
Anthere. Next time I'll wait for the whole Board to reply before
setting the rights, or doing anything else.
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.
That sounds like a pretty good idea. It would help in such situations
as Arno's stewardship ATM.
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.
Yes, that would be really useful. Right now I'm following my own
policy (go me), which says "If a project doesn't have CheckUsers, go
ahead with the check". But I know it isn't right and we should have an
official policy on that, or just simply state "Stewards can't do
CheckUser".
--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki