Anthere wrote:
So, there are people with a flag of developper, with extended bureaucrat powers, with no shell access
And other people with a flag of developper, with shell access and extended bureaucrat power
did I understand well ?
That's how it will be, yes.
You do not mention rules. Would they have specific rules to follow ? New power should implies more rules to follow
Right now, Erik is typically having this kind of power and administrative task. That means *he participates in setting the rules *he decides when the rules must be applied *he implement the decision *he eventually forget to report :-)
I would like to suggest that at least two rules are necessary
rule 1 : no decision alone : depending on the urgency, Jimbo decision, arbitration committee decision, full vote (like for sysoping someone), poll (like urgent desysoping) I think this rule is very important. No decision taken by a ''honorary developper alone''
rule 2 : report mandatory. Depending on the action taken, on the mailing list, on the wikipedia sysop vote page, on the poll page
Breaking of any of these two rules (without a damn good reason) means suspension of "honorary developer" position.
No power should be entirely in a couple of people hands without rules. And the more power, the more the rules need to be enforced.
Last : when there are questions about the actions of a "honorary developer", the one questioning should be granted free speech and public place to talk.
That's all fine by me, as long as the decision to revoke developer access on the basis of rule violation comes from Jimbo, the arbitration committee or a community vote, rather than from a real developer.
-- Tim Starling