Meta talk:Rewriting/Stewards policy
Issues[edit]
- Temporary access(V)
- Size of community for new bureaucrats(V)
- Rewrite elections section (V)
- How to behave on negotiations, trying to solve community problems (V)
Don't promote users on projects with existing bureaucrats[edit]
That does not hold for Oversight and CheckUser access, and maybe others that can not be done by local bureaucrats. --Thogo (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right of course, I made it somewhat more clear. Effeietsanders 00:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thoughts[edit]
I'm quite satisfied with this policy proposal. Most of it is actually what is currently implemented and the rest seems fine by me. I'm not too firm on the reconfirmation thing, though. Maybe the community should have a say in that (not just informal influence on other stewards). Otherwise, quite good. --filip ⁂ 23:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think the current level of community input is about the right level and see no need for change in that. ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
See also[edit]
Proposals for change in some of the voting related policies and processes were put forth here: Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#For_next_year... In particular there is a suggestion to tighten the suffrage requirement, and a suggestion to go to twice a year elections (but retain annual confirmation) ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- After discussion with a small subset of stewards, it appears that it is not likely that switching to every 6 months for elections would gain consensus among stewards so I have not changed the proposed policy to reflect that. There was support for clarifying suffrage requirements and no objection to using the same suffrage requirements as the board election (making both the candidate requirements (over 18, name and proof of identity made available) and the suffrage requirements parallel). This diff shows the changes I propose. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am somewhat ambivalent about stewards elections as I do not fully approve of the current requirements or system. However I would be intrigued to know why it might be the stewards that would decide on whether or not there was a requirement for future elections to be held or not. I am aware that the Foundation cannot be called a democracy but surely the "mere" users might get to have some say in the matter? Given that the traffic on this page may be a little light maybe a more prominent spot for such views to be aired should be found? --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Consensus gained purely by a few stewards is not really consensus at all. Before any ideas about changing this process are rejected, due discussion between everyone is warranted and required. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am somewhat ambivalent about stewards elections as I do not fully approve of the current requirements or system. However I would be intrigued to know why it might be the stewards that would decide on whether or not there was a requirement for future elections to be held or not. I am aware that the Foundation cannot be called a democracy but surely the "mere" users might get to have some say in the matter? Given that the traffic on this page may be a little light maybe a more prominent spot for such views to be aired should be found? --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- In any case it would not be the intention of this very proposal to change major things like this. Please see Meta:Rewriting about that. The idea was to update to stuff everybody agrees on at least, later on, proposals could be made for changes that are not as obvious. Effeietsanders 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as we mean "everybody" not "stewards" --Herby talk thyme 07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although the stewards are my first group of reference (i can't really speak with everybody) I do not expect much problems with the changes proposed. Effeietsanders 10:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS: What does this have to do with Do not disrupt projects to make a point? Effeietsanders 10:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- My "point" was rather simpler (to me). I begin to see signs that stewards feel that they will determine issues rather than listen. I do not agree with 55% here for example however you effectively prevented others from altering the figure on the page? Two of us disagree with you but you maintain your view as "correct"? "Listening" to other views is an important skill for those with responsibilities --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS: What does this have to do with Do not disrupt projects to make a point? Effeietsanders 10:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although the stewards are my first group of reference (i can't really speak with everybody) I do not expect much problems with the changes proposed. Effeietsanders 10:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as we mean "everybody" not "stewards" --Herby talk thyme 07:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: about "home project"[edit]
For the home project, you might want to make that word a plural, since some stewards contribute on more than one project frequently. Or, you can just say, "projects that the steward has adminship." Thanks! miranda 07:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
About reconfirmations[edit]
Lar changed this about reconfirmations (first paragraph only), but unfortunately i was not able to change the permalink on time in the voting, so here it is for a next rewriting(signed: Effeietsanders 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)):
Stewards elections are held at the discretion of the Board of Trustees, which also must approve the rules before the election. They typically take place when new stewards are needed (sometimes annually). Elections are typically announced in many places like Meta, many local projects, and mailing lists. In 2006 and 2007, elections were held in late November, early December and it is a reasonable expectation that they will be held the same time every year.