[Foundation-l] Steward elections

Dan Rosenthal swatjester at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 23:00:27 UTC 2007

I stopped counting after 20 objections to Jimbo's use of steward  
tools in the "Initial discussions" section alone. Most were from  
respected admins, all certainly respectable contributors to the project.

I'm pretty sure I could find 50 if I really cared to check (Which I  
don't. I know where I stand on the subject, and I know the likelyhood  
of getting my way on this is nil.)  How big is a big enough group?  
What is the required prerequisite? Where is it listed?

I think we're all kidding ourselves if we think this is going to  
happen right now, just like we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought  
world peace is possible right now. Despite it being a blatant  
violation of stewardship rules, Jimmy won't step down (from the  
stewardship) unless he feels like he did something wrong. He doesn't  
feel that way, despite our massed frustration we expressed. Nobody  
can MAKE him step down. So basically, it's time to move onwards. Pick  
and choose your battles.

Dan Rosenthal

On Nov 12, 2007, at 5:40 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list