Requests for Comment/Change to Steward Policies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing with no change to the policy. This proposal was overwhelming (in a sense) rejected in the original Steward RFC and with little support in contrast to that RFC there is no grounds for changing the policy. John (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Steward appointment policy changes

Hi all! I'm GFN. I wanted to propose this RfC today to make it easier (since there's not that much community involvement on Miraheze stewardship appointments at this state) to lax the Steward appointments so Stewards can appoint another steward if there is a clear need for this to happen. Here's how I propose we go about this:

• Current volunteers (of any shape or form; i.e the people see on this page) can vote in a maximum of 2 stewards per time of need, for a community imposed time length. This means temporary stewardships as well as permanent (unless removed by vote of no-confidence per current policy) would both be possible; however, this can only be possible in a time where both of the folowing criterion apply: There's not enough stewards to get things done in a timely manner; there's not a high enough amount of active Request for Stewardship contributors (voters); and/or a high enough success-rate to get stewards appointed via RfS.

• Appointments would have to be approved by the majority of helpful people--no exceptions.

• The second option, of course, is to not implement these changes.

 Comments:

 Comment:. Worried about how this could be used by a certain person. LulzKiller (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't name shame but I'm curious as to what you mean as I believe based on the policy and your comment you're implying a current steward or a majority of the people on Miraheze Volunteers would abuse this. Might be true but I think checks would be implemented. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about current staff. LulzKiller (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Still not exactly sure what you're implying, sorry. I personally think there always will be / should be some sort of vetting of Stewards, but the appointment policy does seriously need to be evaluated. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 17:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

LP. I thought it was obvious. LulzKiller (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

LP took it upon themselves to violate our terms of use and indicate they don't agree with outback privacy policy. They will never be unbanned, let alone get staff, unless our terms of use change. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 17:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that, won't stop him from trying though. LulzKiller (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I would be okay with this but the word "volunteer" is too vague. Any user could say they are a volunteer after helping with one feature request. Unless there is a specific criteria for being a "volunteer" anyone can be considered a volunteer so we might as well change it to "user". Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the term volunteers is vague but keep in mind this isn't a user appointing themselves to Steward. I think the point is to change RfS procedure to be a % of "active users" instead of a fixed 20. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

NDKilla hit the nail in the coffin. Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at by making the RfC. GFN (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that, as quoted from Stewards#Appointment: "For the nomination/election to be successful, there must be at least 20 user's comments and a support ratio of at least 80%" is one of the main concerns regarding the whole stewardship appointing process? Currently, there does seem to be a lack in the number of users that edit on Meta and, therefore, anyone trying to gain steward status would never be able to garner enough support for a minimum of 80% in favour. I believe NDK's point is a valid one and should at least be seriously looked into. The last few steward requests have not gone too well, not necessarily due to the lack of user comments but more towards what seems like the requesters' "poor English." On a global/universal level the requesters should, in all honesty, have moderate capabilities in English, if anything to avoid communication barriers. But all of that is moot if there is not enough people to vote in the first place. So, in times of dire need maybe having stewards appoint other users that have been properly vetted and have shown they are capable of using all the necessary steward tools, should be considered as a backup and, with a view for further change, be implemented into the stewards global policy. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 23:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm still extremely concerned about the wording of this and want to eliminate vagueness. Would anyone care to draft a wording of the policy? If you include things like 'helpful people' please define any such terms so that there can be no argument. Personally I still think it should be allowed by any logged in user but just a lower count or a ratio instead of a fixed count. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 15:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Support:

•  Support: I can't emphasize enough the need for changes in Miraheze. The status quo is unsustainable and will eventually lead to further loss of volunteers, community support and future funding due to the apathy felt from those "in control." Please approve or move Calnation (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support: Per my comment above. This would certainly need looking into but it has possibilities for realistic change to the current policy. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 23:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• I'd say... uhm. — revi 15:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section