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
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
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
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
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
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'm not very comfortable with this at all. Wikimedia generally has a track record of not being ageist in the assignment of community roles. Please elaborate on the legal ramifications -- privately or publicly. Perhaps we can identify those steward actions which could be legally problematic, and those which aren't, and split the role accordingly?
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.
It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.
Angela.
On 11/14/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.
As an aside... When did stewards stop being checkuser,etc on project not large enough to have their own?
Angela wrote:
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.
It makes no sense to apply this to stewards who only give out rights and not to the people using the rights. If the issue is with who has checkuser or oversight, then you need to apply the age policy to those users, not to the stewards who are not using checkuser or oversight.
This includes Arbcom too then.
(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
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
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
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org