[Foundation-l] Steward elections

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 22:40:36 UTC 2007

On Nov 12, 2007 2:07 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/11/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/11/2007, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <johnreaveswp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
> >
> > > So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
> > > stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?
> >
> >
> > I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
> > querulous on this point.
> As and until we Jimbo make meaningfully accountable to someone or he
> stops acting outside accepted community norms no.
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think Jimmy is more accountable than that.

I think that if you got a large group of respected contributors together and
made a coherent case to Jimmy that he was outside community norms and
causing problems, he would change his mind.

I don't think that you have a large group of people who can coherently
articulate that case.  This is not the place to fight about it, until you
meet the required prerequisite.

If you want to try putting that case together, please let me know off-list,
so I can see what your points are in detail.

-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com

More information about the foundation-l mailing list