2018-07-10 20:38 GMT+03:00 Alex Monk <kren...@gmail.com>: > On 10 July 2018 at 12:06, Bodhisattwa Mandal <bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 1) Not all communities have been informed about this future change ( >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Distribution_list/Technical_Village_Pumps_ >> distribution_list >> ) > > The plan appears to be to do this, maybe it just hasn't happened yet: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_of_separate_user_group_for_editing_sitewide_CSS/JS#Announcement_plan > > 2) The comments in the meta talk page suggests that there is no intention >> to get opinions from editor community members. Everything seems to be >> pre-decided by the developer community and we dont have other options but >> to accept the proposal without proper discussion. >> ( >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_of_separate_user_group_for_ >> editing_sitewide_CSS/JS >> ) >> > It's a software security decision so editor community acceptance of this > change is optional, but there is an attempt to get the opinions of editor > community members (if there wasn't there wouldn't even be a page on meta > about this). These rights should never have been bundled with sysop rights, > they are incredibly dangerous and more on the level of bureaucrat/steward > than anything else in the sysop rights list. > > 3) Many admins from smaller wikis have expressed their concerns that this >> decision will severely affect the workflow of those wikis, but none of >> these concerns are addressed. >> > I don't see how. The current local group the rights are granted by is > bureaucrat-grantable, and the new local group the rights will be granted by > will be bureaucrat-grantable.
The problem is that smaller wikis don't have bureaucrats either and there have been some very harsh proposals on that talk page with regards to how the user right should be provided by stewards. Having some kind of global policy (like the one you propose below) before deploying would probably ease a lot of the fears. > > >> 4) Many editors have expressed concern over just 2 week short notice period >> for this transition. But that concern is also not addressed. >> > > If we were to say that stewards would be allowed to assign the rights to > any existing local admin (without extra discussion) on the conditions that: > 1) they were an admin at the time of the group losing its rights and have > not lost any local rights since > 2) there have been no local bureaucrats active on the wiki since the change. > I think this would be fine. I agree with the proposal, but it seems rather orthogonal to the transition period. There are all kinds of possible situations and communities are rather responsive more than pro-active on these subjects. As someone pointed out on the talk page, there is no real reason to hurry the deployment so much. The fact that it was announced in the tech news is a good first step, but it seems like a good idea to now take the time to do thinks properly. Strainu > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
