[Foundation-l] New elections for stewards

daniwo59 at aol.com daniwo59 at aol.com
Sat Mar 5 10:52:18 UTC 2005


As one of the people who has requested stewardship, I want to comment on  
some of the proposed rules:
 
In a message dated 3/5/2005 3:14:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
anthere9 at yahoo.com writes:

* it is  useless to keep in steward list an inactive
steward. Activity is show best  by activity on "request
for permission" (log is sometimes lost). I  hence
suggest that any steward with no edits on RfP and no
mention in  the log for 6 months be listed as inactive
and with no activity for a year,  be removed.
Fully agree. I do, however, think that there should be a cap on the number  
of stewards. 


* a  new election will be held in march (or soon)
It should be very clear who will be eligible to vote in this new election.  
What are the criteria for voting. 


*  candidates should have shown implication in
international matters, so we  could possibly require
that the candidate has sysop status on  meta.
Working on meta does not necessarily indicate proficiency in  international 
matters. On the other hand, I do think that there should be  some criteria for 
becoming a steward that should be clearly defined. 


*  Candidates should have at least 80% support (neutral
not  counted)
To date, I have organized the board election and the two arb comm elections  
in Wikipedia. To the best of my recollection (and I can check), no candidate 
has  ever reached 80 percent of the vote. While I agree on a high threshhold, 
this  may not be it.


*  Anyone can vote provided that the editor has a valid
account on meta with a  link to at least one user page
on a project where the editor is a  participant
Valid account on meta from when? are we suddenly going to see a rush on  meta 
accounts?
 


* In  case of suspicion of sock puppetry, developers
could be asked to check and  sock puppet votes
cancelled.

What do you think  ?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards

Ant



While the ideas are good in principle, I think that they have to be  thought 
out a bit more.
 
Danny



More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list