Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Custodianship process

Ideas for resolutions
Just a few thoughts that have been bouncing around my brain a while:
 * 1. make it a separate usergroup that's just like custodian but can be removed locally if there are any concerns, if the user goes on break during the mentorship period, etc. This would increase the "no big deal" factor, as well as give us more freedom to experiment with giving the tools temporarily to course instructors, etc.


 * 2. Require consent of at least 2 crats before starting a mentorship.


 * 3. If someone is unable to find a willing mentor or there are not 2 crats agreeing to promote, allow the person to use an "rfa" to request self-mentoring.


 * 4. formalize mentorship a bit, perhaps requiring a log with comments on a public page where the mentored custodian can give us their thinking behind each tool usage.

It would be nice to get this squared away. --SB_Johnny talk 10:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While the separate usergroup idea has merit, i.e., locally removable privileges, presumably removable by any 'crat, it's not clear to me that the incidence of any necessity for this is great enough to justify the change, given that it is easy to get a steward to lift a bit if there is good cause. I've proposed a Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement to make it simple to stop any problematic actions by a probationary custodian, and to make it easy to have a steward be shown some diffs, and remove the tools. Even absent that, there is no example of a rogue probationary custodian where it was difficult to stop the problem. While I'm aware that some might claim I was so, I'd given permission for SB_Johnny to yank the tools at any time, and I'd also stated I'd stop what I was doing if asked by any custodian, and, in fact, I was begging for additional custodial attention.


 * What's the problem that the fixes above are intended to fix? What went wrong? --Abd 02:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem arises when there is a mentorship that members of the community might be concerned about. There should be some checks and balances to prevent abuse. For example, we've had a few cases over the years where custodians have been demoted by community processes: should they just be able to become custodians again if one particular 'crat decides to mentor and/or promote? It's a bad loophole, period. --SB_Johnny talk 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No example has been shown of damage from such a "loophole." Rather, one disgruntled desysopped permanent custodian complained loudly when SB_Johnny followed the policy, which that custodian had previously relied upon, and brought in SPAs to support this axe-grinding. "Concern" does not equal "abuse" or "loophole." This discussion could spin out into a dirty-laundry fest, do we need to look back at what happened, and the role that this or that editor or bureaucrat played in it? Or can we move ahead, for the welfare of Wikiversity? I'm hoping for the latter possibility.
 * The existing policy allows users to readily obtain and work with the tools, and there is no doubt but that security can be increased (I proposed and agreed to the stop agreement as an example of how to do this), but the policy, as-is, is not broken and change to it should be incremental. Making the process complicated and difficult is not a sound approach. --Abd 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)