Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/en

See also Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010

What is wrong with this picture

• We have a significant requirement for stewards, with the statements of a specific need due to high levels of workload
• We have stewards who want to have the badge, but cannot, or will not commit to the activity
• We have stewards who went through the popularity contest a year ago, subsequently appointed, and have not particularly undertaken the task.
• We set the bar high on appointment to the role, which is significantly based on the "feel" of the users for candidates, not on technical competence, a level of assessment of the value that they could bring, nor on work ethic.
• We have the community supposedly dismiss the proposal that is specifically set to alleviate the some of the workload issues, and again as the bar is set very high, and those who have been appointed to oversee the major components are having their thinking dismissed.

I am for a balanced approach, I heartily feel that stewards should actually have an outside life, and a wikilife, and not be tied to the role of slaves to wiki tasks. However, there seems to be something astray with the vision.

It would seem that stewards should be expected to undertake a component of work in the role, and that at the same time that there obviously should be a wikileave allowance to let them enjoy some community aspects if they wish, and to still have a real life.

There should be an expression on the indication of the minimum number of stewards that will be required to undertake the role, rather than a nefarious non-amount. This amount would help people assess the performance and their expectations of existing stewards and their efforts. If the minimum amount of stewards is not reached, then there should be a means for stewards to be able to recommend the filling of roles and these could be put to the community out of session for confirmation or rejection. This could also allow for specific areas of need to be addressed. There may be screams of favouritism, cabalism, etc. though we should be able to wear these comments, as the most important need is the functioning of this pivotal volunteer role. We won't get perfection, and I don't want it, functionality has to be the requisite.

I heartily congratulate and sincerely thank those stewards who tirelessly dedicated themselves to the role in the past year. You have my appreciation of the task that you have undertaken, and in the difficult circumstances in which the community approach often seems to have you hamstrung. Regards. billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

1.  Support I would support this view and I would be happy if this was implemented, I would feel as if the community actually wanted people to do the job but I think that you should have more young people doing the job. Although the role of steward requires you to have cross wiki experience I think that you should have stewards who are on like a probationary period and monitored like admin coaching for want of a better word? Corruptcopper 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Something like Global sysop? ;) Laaknor 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is what I am getting at although there should be a way of allowing users to nominate to become stewards or perhaps have an election every 6 months rather than every year as a year alot can happen in that year. Corruptcopper 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)