Anthere wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>>* on a project with no arbcom, the community
will have to vote for its
>>editors with checkuser access. A limit of votes number has been set on
>>purpose. I recommand avoiding using sockpuppet for voting. A wiki
>>community with 10 editors and 30 voters is likely to be frowned upon.
> And next, we'll be voting for root, database
access and CVS access.
> Get your votes in now! Brion, Tim or Lir for Mediawiki lead? It's a
> hot contest!
I think it should be possible to discuss without using
fallacious
arguments David. There is no comparison between a checkuser access and a
root access.
There is, really: neither is a voting matter. I raised this before,
but you appear to regard the objection as (to quote you) "no real
opposition". Not to mention Tim's quote when voting for checkuser was
floated: "Users would vote themselves root if they could."
What I said was that users need:
- the technical knowledge to know what they're seeing (which a network
admin was one example of);
- the trustworthiness that they won't break the privacy policy
The main problem I see here is that it seems you
consider that check
user access should only be given to sysadmins. I do not think the
majority of editors would agree with you.
Please don't misrepresent my words. I said that was not what I thought
and I meant that was not what I thought. You therefore have no
justification to say that that's what I said or meant. I ask you to
retract it.
I see your argumentation aiming only at restricting the
use of this tool
to a very limited number of editors, approved by Jimbo or Tim. Right
now, Jimbo has approved the access to a half dozen english editors, none
of whom are actually sysadmins.
What is your feeling toward these nominations ?
As you FULLY KNOW BECAUSE I CC'D YOU ON THE EMAIL IN QUESTION, I am
fine with all of those.
Why are you pretending I am saying things I didn't or not saying things I did?
But I would like to know why you have not made any
comments this week
while I have indicated a week ago that unless there was opposition, this
policy would go live this week.
After you complained on arbcom-l of people not commenting, I went and
checked that I had in fact commented ... and had already pointed out
the ridiculousness of voting on the matter.
As Chris Jenkinson said:
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?
Indeed. Anthere, I originally understood this was your position.
- d.