[Wikipedia-l] Re: Developers are very precious part of the global scheme
Tim Starling
ts4294967296 at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 11 05:14:39 UTC 2004
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
More information about the Wikipedia-l
mailing list