At the same time the rather vexed role of moderator was created, so too was the much overlooked position of "tech". While sorting out and electing moderators wisely took precedence, with that largely settled it is time to tackle this other position.
So. "Techs". What are they? How are they appointed? What are their powers and responsibilities? Do we have checks and/or balances? I'm one of the less tech-savvy people here, to be sure, so I feel a bit out of my element here. I believe we currently have something like 3 of these guys, appointed by Trent. That's a fine short term solution, but not a long term one. I'll leave the floor open to discussion. DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Taking a look at the user group rights, I do think that they have some powers that they shouldn't be solely allowed to have, as they are supposed to be a solely technical group. For example, I would like to see the moderators group also have user rename and user rights (when it comes to making new techs and moderators) powers. Anarcho Symphony Noise Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 15:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- here was the discussion, the purpose at the top of the page. I agree with RNS on the rename and rights powers. I can't recall anyone who doesn't have tech rights already editing the MW namespace recently except MordantMaenad a few months ago. ТyNo 16:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Mods don't have rename? -- Nx / talk 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The only thing that separates the techs from mods is that the former have more power but no way to exercise it unless the latter authorize them. Trent's original plan for techs was that moderators would appoint them to do specific tasks. I think that that's a good idea; anyone who wants to be a tech should present their case to the moderators and if four or so mods sign off, they can implement their plan at the mods' discretion. Blue Talk 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)