David Gerard wrote:
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
I still do not see how that allows the comparison between a check user access and a root access.
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 do not really see how I can retract what I think is your position. Admittedly, I may be wrong and not seeing your correct position, but I can't lie about what I believe. That would be denying my beliefs. I hope you see the difference. Now, I hope you will agree that you consider only editors with a certain level of technical knowledge should have access to this tool. When I suggested that this technical knowledge could be offered in the help pages on meta, you said it was not easy to provide such knowledge. So ? What can we do ?
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?
Because I do *not* understand what your position is. I understand you oppose access by voting, but I still do not understand by what you suggest the "nomination system" to be replaced. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understood, you currently suggest that people be approved by Jimbo or Tim ?
You say on one hand that check user should have a certain technical knowledge and be trustworthy. And on the other hand, apparentely that only Jimbo or Tim (I am not entirely sure of this point) should agree on who should have access. My question is : how do you think Jimbo or Tim will do to check the trustworthyness of editors who will maybe not even talk english ? Jimbo or Tim could probably check in most cases the technical ability, but how will they check the trustworthy ability ?
How will they do this for more than 300 projects ????
Another point is, right now, all stewards have check user access. But no steward was approved by a developer or by Tim himself (who is at the origine of the steward status creation), nor by Jimbo. So, do you suggest that stewards are asked not to use this tool ? Or should they be allowed only after approval by Jimbo or Tim ? Or should stewards be only nominated by Jimbo or Tim in the future ?
My problem with your position David, is that I understand against what you are, but I do not understand at all what you propose to replace that proposal with.
One thing I know is that the way our projects work is a mixture of various political systems. I am pushing toward a system more inspired of democracy or oligarchy (community or subcommunity approval). It seems to me you are pushing toward monarchy or technocracy. This seems to be the root of the current problem.
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.
It seems most people who gave their opinion approved the voting method. Are all these people ridicule ?
In case some people did not understand, the english wikipedia will NOT be voting. The checkUser system on the english wikipedia will rely on the arbcom, and for now, nominees were confirmed by Jimbo himself. So, no one will have to bother with voting there.
Now, the fact is, David, while I understand your position to a certain point, I am not sure you have a very strong experience with the non-english communities. You are mostly involved (very much) in the english one. It seems the english community is quite happy with a mixture of monarchy (Jimbo) and oligarchy (committees....). This is not necessarily the case on most projects. And I think most projects will not be very happy with Jimbo (for example) making a decision for them. My best example on this issue is that... stewards... are definitly approved by the community. And though I think most of those who know Tim consider him a great guy, I also think going back to a system where decision making is done by a developer... will not be something really appreciated.
In the current proposal, any community has actually a CHOICE between voting and not voting. If they REALLY do not want a community vote, they have two options * they can set up a sort of arbcom system to make this kind of decision for them * or they can entirely avoid voting for anyone and rely on stewards to carry on ponctual requests.
And thinking about the french arbcom, if the french community feels like the community should handle a vote, then the arbcom itself is empowered to just say "okay, we could make this decision for you, but we prefer the community make that decision".
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.
No. Not upon approval. We are not a top down organisation.
If we were a top-down organisation, with board approval at any step, you would possibly not have yourself the check user status as the board was never asked to approve it.
By default, we consider you are doing the job with full honesty and understanding.
Anthere