[Foundation-l] Re: Steward elections

[Anthere]

Dariusz Siedlecki wrote:
> On 1/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Okay, I have to agree I didn't wait for you - Angela and Jimbo
> confirmed the 9 new Stewards, and seeing that you were interested
> earlier in the election and didn't comment on any candidate, I thought
> you won't have any doubts to any of them.
> 
> Well, I was just being bold, to make a long story short. I agree, I
> should've waited for you to reply. Because of my behaviour, sorry
> Anthere. Next time I'll wait for the whole Board to reply before
> setting the rights, or doing anything else.

Sigh. Okay.
Well, I fully trust you all guys. And Angela had no opposition 
whatsoever as well.

(guys...  errrr... yes, that's right... no gals... why ?)

One thing that makes me pretty happy is this

Ausir 			pl
Walter			nl
Jon Harald Søby		no
Suisui			ja
Ascánder		es
Rdsmith4		en
Romihaitza		ro
villy			fr
Paginazero		it


This is pretty cool no ?

Next time, I suggest to put a new rule (positive discrimination I know), 
a requirement of 50% of female stewards... a real challenge



>>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.
> 
> 
> That sounds like a pretty good idea. It would help in such situations
> as Arno's stewardship ATM.

Yup. He seems not very happy...


>>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.
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be really useful. Right now I'm following my own
> policy (go me), which says "If a project doesn't have CheckUsers, go
> ahead with the check". But I know it isn't right and we should have an
> official policy on that, or just simply state "Stewards can't do
> CheckUser".

There is even another option...

Imagine we have one person we trust very much, who is not interested in 
being a steward, but who has the technical skills to be a checkuser and 
is showing good understanding of the checkuser privacy issues etc...

What about giving that person the checkuser status on many projects, if 
not all projects (I suppose this could be set in the database), so that 
this person can do the job on a more global scale ?

(Of course, I say one person, it could be several).

This would probably remove in most part the need of stewards making the 
checks themselves, activity for which they may not be the most suitable 
people.


Anthere


> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki