-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Anthere wrote:
So, to answer David question, I think there are roughly three main options
First option : people get checkuser access on an automatic basis, through another status (for example, all bureaucrats automatically get the tool).
Second option : people get checkuser access through an approval system (with a community vote or an arbitrator vote)
Third option : the monarchy system. Tim (as suggested by David) or Jimbo (as recently done for the english wikipedia) decide who has check user access.
Surely the enforcement of the Foundation's privacy policy is the responsibility of the Foundation, and thus access to personal information (such as IP addresses) should be given out upon approval by the Board, rather than by some kind of election system?
I was just thinking that. The people who currently have checkuser status were granted it by the developers, who currently already have that capability. The developers were effectively approved to do (whatever) by the board; hence, the board decides who is allowed access to the checkuser function.
A general community vote is a *bad idea*. "Power to the people" sounds good in theory, but the reality is that "the people" cannot be trusted.
We have a board; we might as well use them.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \