2016 Community survey/Steward

From Meta

Candidate for Steward[edit | edit source]

  • Problem: All user on miraheze wiki.
  • Who would benefit: All user can get fast respond.
  • Proposed solution: Redesign the user group of steward. And having the candidate per 2 years of less. If possible for security reason, create new group. TriX (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit | edit source]

  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support MacFan4000 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The proposal seems hollow. What's wrong with the current stewards specifically? What's wrong with how the user group is designed ("redesign the user group")? Why the time limit on a term? John (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I Think we need more steward. Not wrong with usergroup, but if you think steward is not to give for untrusted user it was danger, and for avoid it, create new usergroup with under steward access, example: If worry. create helper of User gruops it can be changed interwiki right but can't lock or hide/blocking. Limit is effect for people per "pertanyaan kepada saya". If someone is busy so will to be fast for respon with task or help and can move on from organize, if can late. See mytalk TriX (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Stewards don't have a slow response time though. We've had 3 steward requests in the past few months, all dealt with within an hour or two. When people don't inform us of work, then it takes a while but that's mit because of the team but rather users. We can delegate out deletion rights, rights that Sysops have but things like locking and user rights need to remain a stewards full responsibility and it the only reason a steward role exists - to keep the number of users who can assign all rights everywhere as low as possible. The most common requests for stewards are: assigning a misc. user right once in a while, oversighting or running a CheckUser. John (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Well. To run checks, whether to postpone the question. We just want to help. At WMF there is a confidentiality agreement. Chances are if applied here will help. TriX (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The objective at the WMF is similar, the least number of people possible to achieve the objective. A confidentially agreement won't help move forward as this is what we expect now anyway, just we've not made it formal. The group if anything is a community delegation so wanting to help is not an issue, the community just has to agree the same way. Delegation of rights to a point is also not an issue, it's just something the community need to want as well. As a community member with the same equal opinion as everyone else - I just want to make sure things are fully understood. John (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What if someone asks the right steward? You give? Selecting? Decline? TriX (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It will be a community vote as far as I am aware. A policy hasn't really been established for it. John (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused as to what this and the below proposals even are? I don't understand the premise really I guess. If Stewards' terms were limited to 2 years, most of the founding Stewards' terms would be expiring. Also, like mentioned, for security reasons we will not be handing out 'userrights-interwiki' (the main reason for stewards imo) willy nilly. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( TalkContribs ) 15:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote[edit | edit source]

Acces Trusted User on Git[edit | edit source]

  • Problem: Having much a task can't fast respon
  • Who would benefit: All user can get the fast.
  • Proposed solution: give acces for trusted user, and elected them with programming code. TriX (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit | edit source]

  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support although you would need shell to run puppet. MacFan4000 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a strict policy of no git access without shell. John (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I want to query what is wrong with how things are handled currently. A community elected process for this won't work beyond a recommendation as operations need to be solely responsible for the security of infrastructure so we can handle security issues swiftly and quickly without the community being a block to it. People can just ask us and we treat every request equally on merit of work, response times, filing in holes and experience. John (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Not wrong query. But we would like to provide the opportunity for a trusted user for help. We know about the security reason. Maybe only for mediawiki acces for merge pr. We do not ask for more TriX (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
All users have the right to contribute and we have a small group of people who do. The issue with Git access is there needs to be an accompanying shell access. If someone merges a bad change or so, 10 minutes (or more) of the site being down is unacceptable which forms the issue with this. Git and shell come hand in hand - if anything shell will be granted without git but not the other way around unless the git access is for an extension only. John (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)