[Foundation-l] Waerth's stewardship

[GerardM]

Hoi,
The proposal may be sensible BUT is it to be implemented retro
actively? Given the current situation in the Dutch chapter and the
Dutch wikipedia where a substantial group of people are dissatisfied
because of a perceived lack of communication, this is absolutely the
wrong thing to do.

I have heard noices that it is not for people of the Dutch community
to question the procedures around this. This is one factor that makes
the situation of the Dutch chapter even worse because it suggest that
things are done in secret and it strenghtens the existing feeling of
un-ease because it demonstrates that while the letter of the statues
of the Dutch chapter suggest a hands-off approach the facts on the
ground are different. These "noices" did not originate from people of
the chapter by the way.

It is possible to implement the proposal retro-actively. When stewards
were chosen, it was always said that they were then accepted or not
accepted by the board/Jimmy. It is therefore the board/Jimmy who can
say that they do not trust Waerth anymore in his role as a steward.
This is a communication/decision that cannot be delegated.

So from my perspective; the proposal has merit. It is up to the board
or Jimmy personally to decide on Waerth's stewardship. It would be
best to have clarity and have it settled as soon as possible; in the
end it is about people and community.

Thanks,
    GerardM


On 4/23/06, oscar <oscar.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> my suggestion as to policy would be to add the following paragraph to the
> stewards-page:
> ---
> Any abuse, or even the threatening of abuse, of the steward-rights, will
> lead to an immediate and permanent removal of these.
> ---
> oscar
>
> On 3/24/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
> > removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his
> > conflict
> > with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and
> > recognize
> > that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
> > necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block
> > on  nl.wiki.
> >
> > I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
> > stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances
> > are  unprecedented.
> >
> > Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
> > discussion of what policy should be.
> >
> > Danny
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>