[Foundation-l] More stewards...

Wed Nov 15 11:53:50 UTC 2006

I've heard that it's because all power flows from the Stewards, and if we
have non-liable people at the top that could cause problems. Ask Brad,
anyways.

On 11/15/06, Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (Copy-pasting from [[m:Talk:Stewards/elections_2006-2]])
>
> I would really like to know what kind of actions Stewards do that
> "might have legal consequences". We have lost one really good
> candidate because of this requirement, and I don't really see the
> reason for it. Both I and Datrio were under 18 when we were elected,
> and there was no problem then – and AFAIK, nothing has changed about
> the steward rôle since then.
>
> If it has to do with checkuser or oversight, it's as simple as what
> Angela says, to have policies about the use of these tools re. age. I
> generally second Angela's post.
>
> On 11/14/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please note I have added a section to the rules regarding the legal
> > age requirement of 18 years for anyone running for steward.  I am
> > aware there are some people who wish to run for steward who are not
> > 18.  Unfortunately, there is not an exception for this requirement.
> > Individuals who are trusted within our community may not be treated
> > the same way if there is a lawsuit which results from a steward's
> > actions, which is a very real possibility.  As such, we cannot allow
> > individuals who are not yet 18 to run.
> >
> > Also, for the same reasons, individuals who are anonymous (using only
> > a username) must disclose their identity in the same manner as persons
> > who run for the Board.
> >
> > Please contact me individually if you require further explanation.
> >
> > On 11/13/06, Sean Whitton <sean at silentflame.com> wrote:
> > > The steward's roll has always been (correct me if I'm wrong here) a
> > > functional one where stewards aim to avoid making decisions and
> > > judgements and just follow the processes necessary. I think that the
> > > stewards are all perfectly skilled at judging the consensus of the
> > > community, of course, but I am fearful that it would undermind their
> > > position.
> > >
> > > I may of course be nit-picking here, but I think we need to be careful
> > > as the position of steward, while usually low-profile, can have an
> > > influence in certain situations.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > S
> > >
> > > On 13/11/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >         —Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom
> is liberty
> > >                 sean at silentflame.com (PGP: 0x25F4EAB7) | xyrael.net
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brad Patrick
> > General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> > bradp.wmf at gmail.com
> > 727-231-0101
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jon Harald Søby
>
> Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
> Skype - jon.harald.soby
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>