[Foundation-l] Steward elections

Wed Nov 14 06:49:51 UTC 2007

This is a very sweet thought Waerth and I thank you and others for the 
support.
However, I am not in support of that; one rule I pushed to set up on 
meta is that admin, bureaucrat, stewards etc... positions are not 
positions of recognition, or not title. Get the positions if you need 
them and trusted to get them. Lose the positions if you are no more 
trusted AND lose the position when you do not need it anymore.

If I am no more participant to this project in 5 years, I will not need 
the steward access any more in the future. I think it should not get big 
deals and things for which people fight to have access to, or cry when 
they lost it :-)

Best

Ant

(on an very very very bad internet connexion)

   Get Waerth wrote:
> How about adding Anthere and Angela to the stewards for life group? They 
> were the first ones so started it off more or less. And they do know how 
> to use the steward buttons. I certainly feel that they deserve that.
> 
> Waerth
>> Yeah...
>> Well, I am happy if we consider Jimbo a steward for life, out of the 
>> sake of argument that he is the founder of Wikipedia, blablabla
>>
>> But please drop the argument that he is part of the group of Wikimedians 
>> which needs the steward tech tool. He does not need that tool and I am 
>> not even sure he ever used it (or even know how to use it).
>> Let's be serious here :-)
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> Comet styles wrote:
>>   
>>> Jimbo,Brion Vibber, RobChurch, Kate and Tom Starling are exempted from
>>> confirmation since they are part of the group of wikimedians with a
>>> bigger task of improving wikimedia and they would need the tools from
>>> time to time and not always and its wiser to let them keep it and they
>>> may not use it rather then to take it away from them and they wont be
>>> able to use it when and if they need it... (O_o)
>>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2007 10:07 AM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>     
>>>> On 12/11/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> On 12/11/2007, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>         
>>>>>> On 12/11/2007, John Reaves <johnreaveswp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>           
>>>>>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/elections_2007#Confirmations__.28of_identity_and_of_existing_stewards.29
>>>>>>>             
>>>>>> So despite breaking what is described as "very strong policy for
>>>>>> stewards" jimbo's position as a meta steward is not open to question?
>>>>>>           
>>>>> I don't expect "no, and stop being querulous" will stop you being
>>>>> querulous on this point.
>>>>>         
>>>> As and until we Jimbo make meaningfully accountable to someone or he
>>>> stops acting outside accepted community norms no.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> geni
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>     
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 