[Foundation-l] Re: Steward elections

[Jean-Christophe Chazalette]

What has been done can be undone no problem. As far as I'm concerned,
I'd rather be removed from the steward list the necessary time for the
board to get to a decision quietly, even if it means that - at the end
of it - it decides not to grant me the steward rights (for instance
because I had a weaker support than others or because there is no need
for such a bunch of new ones). At any rate, I'm not feeling at ease to
give a hand to the projects, as a second rate steward, a <tag>not
approved</tag> one. Just my POV.

villy ~~JC


2006/1/12, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
>
> Hi
>
> Actually...
>
> it would have been nice that you gave the time to the board to approve
> all the mentionned candidates.
>
> Next time we are supposed to give our opinion on the matter, it would be
>   best to actually allow 24 hours for doing so. I do not think it really
> matters in this case, but it would have both followed the elections
> rules AND be polite to us.
>
> ------
>
> Aside from this
>
> I suggest that in a few months from now, we set up a "reconfirmation" of
> current stewards (not those just elected, but the old chaps). Several
> have been removed in the past few months, mostly because inactive. But
> it might be that some editors are actually not happy with some stewards
> and might wish to change their minds with them.
>
> Second, I suggest that a sort of policy be done with regards to the use
> of checkuser rights.
> Stewards can use checkuser rights. Checkuser rights may impact the
> Foundation privacy policy, so maybe the Foundation should have a say on
> who gets this access. And checkuser rights involve technical skills. So,
> these populations should be different.
>
>
> Anthere
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>