Talk:Requests for comment/Approval of the rewritten Meta-Steward relationship document as policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


The proposed version is certainly clearer and resolves a lot of the ambiguities present in the current version. The text will need some copyediting, but the content of the proposal seems fine to me. I still think we should get rid of the local oversight flag, but that is a separate issue and approving this version of the policy doesn't preclude that discussion in any way. As a procedural question: since when are bureaucrat rights needed to close policy discussions on Meta? Jafeluv (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we move this to the project subject page instead? --Bencmq (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant to, but got lost at "Please use === Three level headers === for each subject you want to discuss." It's just general commentary on the proposal. Jafeluv (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A bit of language cleanup of the proposed guideline will be useful. Deryck C. 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi. As the guideline was mainly written by me I must say that English is not my mothertonge so I realize my text is for sure far from perfection as I am. If there are obvious typos I would welcome their fixing. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I once tried to fix a conjunction and got reverted, so I won't proofread the draft. --Nemo 07:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the diff you show you did also modified the draft and there was a reason for the revert. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A reason which doesn't include reversion of grammar fixes. Thanks, Nemo 12:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your approach is far from helpful. Proposed policies are not to be modified when in discussion without consensus and that's what you did. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Red herring. --Nemo 06:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not enough discussion, probably[edit]

The timeline for discussion is suposed to end today. However I feel there might be unresolved points and there's not enough participation or at least not what I expected. As such I wonder if we could extend the discussion for one or two more weeks, allow people to return from hollydays, etc. and refine the draft before launching the vote. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 --Nemo 22:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Thanks. Hoping that it is not in vain... -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reviewed the proposed policy, and made a few small edits to (I am almost certain) clarify what the words meant. (I hope somebody will review this edit though, as I am not 100% sure if I captured what was originally intended.) The result seems good to me, and while I should note that I am not the greatest expert in how these functionary roles fit together across project, I am happy to support this being adopted as policy.-Pete F (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A process comment: the first link in the Requests for comment/Approval of the rewritten Meta-Steward relationship document as policy#Introduction Introduction section, labeled "this version," still points to the Aug. 12, 2012 version. This should probably be updated since several improvements have been made to the document. -Pete F (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this edit might be controversial since in this section folks were not confortable with stewards being pseudo local bureaucrats even in cases of inactivity. Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have no opinion on that one way or the other; I was simply finding the text very confusing as it was, and trying to make it more clear. Considering what you say here, I am unsure what the "seven days" distinction is about -- it seems like a "distinction without a difference." Maybe the reference to a seven day period should just be removed? I will not try to fix it further, but suggest that somebody who understands the consensus better than I do should make sure it is clearly reflected in that section. -Pete F (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pete, English is not my mother tonge; and I'm sure there are things that are not clear or wrongly written. If you find more confusing things, typos, etc. I do appreciate their fixing. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is well written overall! I have already made the only edits that seemed needed. I hope it can move forward soon! -Pete F (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Pete for your edits, I clarified what our position is per the previous discussion in this edit. Thehelpfulone 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]