[Foundation-l] More stewards...

Wed Nov 15 12:05:51 UTC 2006

Yeah, but that happens as often as Jimbo using his executive power.

On 11/15/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
>
> Surely all power really flows from the devs, using the stewards as a
> channel?
>
> S
>
> On 15/11/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if
> we
> > have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
> > anyways.
> >
> > On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
> > >
> > > I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> > > "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> > > candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> > > reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> > > and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> > > the steward rôle since then.
> > >
> > > If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> > > Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> > > generally second Angela's post.
> > >
> > > On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > > > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > > > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > > > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > > > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > > > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > > > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > > > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> > > >
> > > > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using
> only
> > > > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as
> persons
> > > > who run for the Board.
> > > >
> > > > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here)
> a
> > > > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that
> the
> > > > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind
> their
> > > > > position.
> > > > >
> > > > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be
> careful
> > > > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > > > influence in certain situations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > S
> > > > >
> > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Well... you know... yesterday, on irc, it was suggested that
> Danny
> > > > > > should not be reconfirmed since he was staff and needed the
> status
> > > to do
> > > > > > office action, but I should be reconfirmed. Granted, no one
> > > mentionned
> > > > > > Jimbo should be reconfirmed... :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /me vaguely wonders how she would do if not reconfirmed...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now, stewards lose stewardship was becomming inactive. Or
> they
> > > > > > lose it because another steward decides to remove them their
> access.
> > > > > > If this is acceptable, I have been wondering if we could not
> > > simplify
> > > > > > things by having stewards self-confirm their group ? For
> example,
> > > after
> > > > > > new elections, all stewards would do a clean up of their group
> (and
> > > > > > remove inactive or bad stewards). Would that be shocking ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ant
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Sean Whitton wrote:
> > > > > > > Although I agree that we should reconfirm stewards, do we
> really
> > > need
> > > > > > > to do so the the board members?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no easy solution here as board members are not
> > > automatically
> > > > > > > stewards or anything, the point I'm making is that
> reconfirming
> > > Jimbo
> > > > > > > seems a little strange.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > S
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Last steward election was nearly a year ago. Since then, some
> > > stewards
> > > > > > >>resigned, some were removed, some became inactive. We need
> more
> > > stewards.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Please see here:
> > > > > > >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>The rules are basically the same than last year but for one
> thing.
> > > > > > >>Previous stewards will have to be reconfirmed. Inactive
> stewards
> > > will be
> > > > > > >>removed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>The rules for election are not yet fully finalized. Please
> comment
> > > on
> > > > > > >>them in the next few days. Currently, some people think dates
> may
> > > not be
> > > > > > >>best. Others are not certain previous stewards should be
> > > reconfirmed.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Ant
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only
> wisdom
> > > is liberty
> > > > >                 sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) |
> xyrael.net
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brad Patrick
> > > > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > > > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > > > 727-231-0101
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jon Harald Søby
> > >
> > > Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> > > Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> > > MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
> > > Skype - jon.harald.soby
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> --
>         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is
> liberty
>                 sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>