Indeed.  That was good-faith "apparently" as in "the evidence suggests".
Thank you for your explicit assumption of good-faith.  I'm sorry I came off
badly.

The argument I'd like to make to the Stewards is that (short of a good
argument about why we should have a gate here) there should be no process
for them to adopt.

-Aaron

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Chris Steipp <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Is there a clearly good reason that we need to continue this review
> > process?  If not, I find it very frustrating that we're slowing things
> down
> > so much because of imagined boogie-men.  The idea of
> > permission-just-in-case-someone-does-a-bad-thing is opposed to the wiki
> > model of keeping things as open as possible and addressing problems as
> they
> > happen.  In the meantime, we're encouraging bad behavior by making the
> > OAuth system such a pain to work with.  I understand that you're doing
> this
> > in your free time csteipp, but the pain of delays is still inflicted on
> > tool developers all the same.  Maybe it is inappropriate that such a key
> > infrastructure (and official requirement for Labs-based tools) is left up
> > to volunteer time of someone who is apparently overworked.
> >
> >
> I'm very happy for other people to join this process. I believe there's an
> open bug about making approvals automatic for non-controversial rights.
> Patches welcome.
>
>
> >    1. How long is this transition process supposed to take?
> >
>
> Not defined yet.
>
>
> >    2. Should I start making my argument to the Stewards now?
> >
>
> About what? If you have something that's not controversial, ping one of the
> admins, and I'm sure you can get your Consumer approved today.
>
>
> >    3. Is there a public conversation about this transition that I can
> >    participate in?
> >
> >
> The RFC is the correct place. The Stewards are just getting back from
> travelling so I don't think we've started updating it to account for our
> conversations last week, but that is where we will work out the details.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to