[Foundation-l] Steward elections
titoxd.wikimedia at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 17:58:39 UTC 2007
I'm not really sure I agree with the conclusion, but I agree with the point.
I can't say that Anthere and Angela would be elevated in the social
hierarchy of Wikimedia (how can they be higher, anyways?), but I do not
think that they need the permanent steward bit.
Why? Because the nature of stewardship dictates so. Unlike adminship in the
English Wikipedia, to pick an easy example, it is fair to say that stewards
are expected to be active (the merits of the enwiki attitude are a
completely separate subject that I won't touch with a 10 ft
(3.0 m) pole...) Inactivity is a reason for removal of the steward bit
in reconfirmation proceedings, which is not the case for other functionaries
of the Wikimedia family of projects. While I certainly hope that Anthere and
Angela stay involved with the project for a long time to come, I still don't
see the need for granting them permanent stewardship. That's because I
simply cannot envision a scenario in which they would not be reappointed
stewards, if they still are active, so the permanent position seems moot to
me. Also, in case they do lose the +steward bit for some reason, they know
exactly who and how to contact other users who do possess steward access.
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gwern Branwen
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:49 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections
On 2007.11.13 18:29:47 +0700, Waerth <waerth at asianet.co.th> scribbled 0
> How about adding Anthere and Angela to the stewards for life group? They
> were the first ones so started it off more or less. And they do know how
> to use the steward buttons. I certainly feel that they deserve that.
This is a terrible idea. We're supposed to be a meritocracy; this suggestion
is antithetical to that. Positions like steward and their powers are only
supposed to be retained as long as the person is productively making use of
them; this suggestion is antithetical to that. "Adminship is no big deal",
it's just a mop, etc.; this talk of rewards and who 'deserve's to be steward
for life is *really* antithetical to that. This suggestion reminds me of all
those failed zombie democracies where they have a president-for-life. "One
man, one vote - once."
The only positions of power or respect that should exist among us are those
of historical fact - ie. Jimbo will never not be the cofounder, for example.
If ever done, this suggestion to ennoble (if I may) Anthere and Angela would
only further contribute to the stratifying of WMF projects.
lock Nike Archives NAAP HAHO MI6 Manfurov KEDO BECCA Templar
More information about the foundation-l