Talk:Stewards policy

Add topic
Active discussions

Self-government of electionsEdit

Do I see correctly that the delegation of steward elections to stewards was decided simply in a 2010 diff by Sj and talk? --Nemo 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

… since the steward group can easily control itselfEdit

Not clear where did Vogone get this idea and to which enigmatic “the RFC” the edit summary referred. The diff provided in the edit summary has no mention of any RfC. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit looks like an attempt to codify the status quo as understood around the time of Requests for comment/Confirmation of stewards. The most important part of that edit is that there is no longer an expectation that stewards can be removed only if there is a consensus for removal. --Nemo 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The practice as of Stewards/Confirm/2018 shows that the community votes, not only “other stewards”. How this practice is related to the current reading of §2.2 Loss of steward access? Isn’t the community vote binding? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not binding, indeed. The actual "vote" if you so will took place here, with the community comments being advisory (2018 was a rather uncontroversial year, it becomes more obvious if you look for steward confirmations in previous years). --Vogone (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
There are open ballots for stewards? @Vogone: who pressed for such a procedure? It is terribly wrong, of course. People making career in Wikimedia are usually conformists by themselves. This form of peer pressure induces them to even stronger conformity. If stewards’ vote is binding, then the ballots must be secret. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The procedure is almost as old as the steward group itself. I agree it is far from ideal, but reforming it is extremely difficult since the opinions on what would be best practice differ very much. --Vogone (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Stewards policy" page.