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