[Foundation-l] More stewards...

[Anthere]

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
>>
> 
> 
>