Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
From Test Wiki
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edit by VancityRothaug (talk) to last revision by Bhairava7 Tag: Rollback |
→Discussion 3: Reply |
||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
Currently, for rights that are very high trust and delegated from Stewards or the community (such as NSS and AFA), those rights can be re-requested at any time. I would propose removing that clause, but I would like to hear the ideas of others: What should happen if a person holding one of those rights loses them due to inactivity and then re-requests them? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
Currently, for rights that are very high trust and delegated from Stewards or the community (such as NSS and AFA), those rights can be re-requested at any time. I would propose removing that clause, but I would like to hear the ideas of others: What should happen if a person holding one of those rights loses them due to inactivity and then re-requests them? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
||
I {{Support}} the removal of this clause from the inactivity policy. I believe that an inactivity removal should be treated as a normal removal and hence require another community vote to regain their position. [[User:VancityRothaug|VancityRothaug]] ([[User talk:VancityRothaug|talk]]) 15:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
I {{Support}} the removal of this clause from the inactivity policy. I believe that an inactivity removal should be treated as a normal removal and hence require another community vote to regain their position. [[User:VancityRothaug|VancityRothaug]] ([[User talk:VancityRothaug|talk]]) 15:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
:{{withdraw}} vote, switching to {{o}} per @LisaBia @Tester and Bhairava7. [[User:VancityRothaug|VancityRothaug]] ([[User talk:VancityRothaug|talk]]) 02:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Oppose}}, if the user already got approval to get those rights in the first place (i.e. they are trusted to handle sensitive role(s)), why over-complicate things just because of inactivity? If someone has a concern, they can just share it when the user re-requests the rights. There may be some exceptions but I'd otherwise support keeping the clause in. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px cyan">[[User:Tester|Tester]]</span> ([[User_talk:Tester|ᴛ]]•[[Special:Contributions/Tester|ᴄ]]) 15:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
{{Oppose}}, if the user already got approval to get those rights in the first place (i.e. they are trusted to handle sensitive role(s)), why over-complicate things just because of inactivity? If someone has a concern, they can just share it when the user re-requests the rights. There may be some exceptions but I'd otherwise support keeping the clause in. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px cyan">[[User:Tester|Tester]]</span> ([[User_talk:Tester|ᴛ]]•[[Special:Contributions/Tester|ᴄ]]) 15:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
||
