[Wikipedia-l] power structures

Sat Mar 20 21:16:16 UTC 2004

Anthere wrote:

>May international wikipedias have a different power
>structure than the english one ?
>
I think that each project should have its own structure, not just the 
international wikipedias.

>Will all the stewards currently listed on meta have
>these powers over all wikipedias or just the english
>one ?
>
I looked through that and I found it unclear.  I'm not quite sure what 
the correct term is anymore.  "Steward" seems acceptable, as is the 
present "bureaucrat".  "Honorary developer" strikes me as misleading.

I agree with Tim that developers should not be meddling in the politics 
of the individual projects.  Doing so can damage their credibility.  I 
agree with the duties that Tim would allocate to developers, though I 
would add to that the duty to deal with bug issues and other technical 
matters.  Since their are not enough developers to allow each project to 
have its own private developer, each project should have at least one of 
the developers be its "assigned" developer.  That developer would have 
the task of occasionally reviewing bug reports on the project, and 
attempting to deal with them.  If he finds himself being asked 
"political" questions his only option would be to refer those question 
to the appropriate person - most likely the bureaucrat for the project.

In a new project the developer is also both a sysop and a bureaucrat. 
 It is in his own best interest to delegate these powers as soon as 
possible.  (Note: I prefer to avoid semantic distinctions between 
"rights" and "powers")

Each project should have at least one bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat 
rights should be assigned on a per project basis.  This does not prevent 
a project from having more than one bureaucrat.  Being a bureaucrat on 
the tamil wikipedia would be pointless is I don't understand Tamil.  

The key asset that a bureaucrat brings to a project is the ability to 
view the project at the big picture level.  Like the chief justice of a 
court or the speaker of a legislature, his vote counts for no more than 
that of his coleagues.  He is just there to insure that things get done, 
and if one of those tasks is creating further sysops, it can become 
clear to the members that he will carry out the will of the members when 
so asked.  A modicum of mediation skills and common sense can be helpful 
to a person in this position.

Ec