Talk:Stewards policy/2015
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion. |
Inactivity
As it currently stands, the policy mandates a full year of inactivity and defines inactive as no actions in the preceding six months (and less than 10 actions in the last year). This means that a steward has to be continuously inactive for a full year and a half. I don't think this was the intent, and I think it should be changed to simply state that inactivity means no actions in 6 months and less than 10 in the last full year. Snowolf How can I help? 05:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Never thought about it that way, although I guess that's one way to read the policy. How about just removing "for a full year" from the section:
Any steward inactive (as a steward)
for a full yearwill have their steward permissions removed. "Inactive" means no steward action in the past 6 months and fewer than 10 steward actions in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular process.- Jafeluv (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be more clear and I definitely support this change. Thanks both. :) Trijnsteltalk 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed that was what I was trying to propose, Jafeluv. It would actually mean stewards can be inactive (I believe this would mean at least one steward would be classified as inactive, and possibly two). Snowolf How can I help? 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Personally I would favour something that identified those who turn up once a year around confirmation time as being "inactive" but I imagine there would be howls of protest.
- Either way there should be a policy. --Herby talk thyme 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed that was what I was trying to propose, Jafeluv. It would actually mean stewards can be inactive (I believe this would mean at least one steward would be classified as inactive, and possibly two). Snowolf How can I help? 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be more clear and I definitely support this change. Thanks both. :) Trijnsteltalk 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Support reasonable change. --Rschen7754 18:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)- I assume nothing changed after this discussion... and should it, especially as it seems most people have much higher thresholds? -- Mentifisto 16:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it should change however the active folk have better things to do and the inactive ones are not that keen on the change. Plus ca change, plus la meme chose je croix (& pardon the fr). --Herby talk thyme 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support This change is a lot better. More clear etc. Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Uhm guys, the change was already made like....2 years ago..--Stemoc 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Self-government of elections
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)