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.
