[Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers are very precious part of the global scheme

[Tim Starling]

Anthere wrote:

> So, there are people with a flag of developper, with extended bureaucrat 
> powers, with no shell access
> 
> And other people with a flag of developper, with shell access and 
> extended bureaucrat power
> 
> did I understand well ?

That's how it will be, yes.

> You do not mention rules.
> Would they have specific rules to follow ?
> New power should implies more rules to follow
> 
> Right now, Erik is typically having this kind of power and 
> administrative task.
> That means
> *he participates in setting the rules
> *he decides when the rules must be applied
> *he implement the decision
> *he eventually forget to report :-)
> 
> I would like to suggest that at least two rules are necessary
> 
> rule 1 : no decision alone : depending on the urgency, Jimbo decision, 
> arbitration committee decision, full vote (like for sysoping someone), 
> poll (like urgent desysoping)
> I think this rule is very important. No decision taken by a ''honorary 
> developper alone''
> 
> rule 2 : report mandatory. Depending on the action taken, on the mailing 
> list, on the wikipedia sysop vote page, on the poll page
> 
> Breaking of any of these two rules (without a damn good reason) means 
> suspension of "honorary developer" position.
> 
> No power should be entirely in a couple of people hands without rules. 
> And the more power, the more the rules need to be enforced.
 >
 > Last : when there are questions about the actions of a "honorary
 > developer", the one questioning should be granted free speech and public
 >  place to talk.

That's all fine by me, as long as the decision to revoke developer 
access on the basis of rule violation comes from Jimbo, the arbitration 
committee or a community vote, rather than from a real developer.

-- Tim Starling