Orain Meta talk:Requests for permissions/Bot
Bot Approvals Group?
I do not see any need for it whatsoever. Before anything like this is implemented, it needs to be discussed as a community first. I'm not blaming anyone here for anything, I just don't think it was wise to make such a broad procedure change without consensus. Meta is small, we have one or two bots. A bot approvals group is a little unnecessary as it creates more hoops for a user to jump through just to help out. I would not object to making it known that the source code must be provided at a request from the Community Council or another entity for security reasons only, but besides that, I think we are creating unnecessary hoops. Until this is discussed, and there is clear consensus to instate this new procedure, I am hiding it from the requests page. Feel free to discuss below and "vote". -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:16, 15 June 2014 (BST)
Discussion
"Voting"
Please use 
Support for supporting the creation of a BAG, 
Oppose for opposing such an entity.
Oppose Unnecessary. -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:16, 15 June 2014 (BST)
Support It's a really simply procedure to get a task approved.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:19, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- Can you elaborate on your rationale for the necessity of an entity exclusively dedicated to handling the so very few bot requests we actually get? Bureaucrats can handle the requests at their own leisure. If the bot is causing problems, they can block it. There is no need to create an even more exclusive group of people who can handle these requests at this point in time. Maybe when Orain grows in size, but otherwise not. Plus, just for clarification, the BAG would not have the authority to approve global bots, as that duty resides with the stewards. -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:22, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- BAG isn't necessarily exclusive. BAG members are users with bot experience that can more effectively make better judgement calls to whether or not a bot should be running or not. Users can easily join by asking.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:27, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- Clearly we have differing opinions. My issue isn't with its exclusivity, per se, but rather the lack of necessity. Right now, it is not necessary. Can you explain why you think, at this point in Orain's time, that it is necessary to have (Other than that you want to have another position of "authority")? -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:32, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- I'm not fond of being called a hat collector. I found it wise to possibly setup a procedure to plan ahead. I'm not opposed to removing BAG, but I thought it to be appropriate for related permissions.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:35, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- Clearly we have differing opinions. My issue isn't with its exclusivity, per se, but rather the lack of necessity. Right now, it is not necessary. Can you explain why you think, at this point in Orain's time, that it is necessary to have (Other than that you want to have another position of "authority")? -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:32, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- BAG isn't necessarily exclusive. BAG members are users with bot experience that can more effectively make better judgement calls to whether or not a bot should be running or not. Users can easily join by asking.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:27, 15 June 2014 (BST)
- Can you elaborate on your rationale for the necessity of an entity exclusively dedicated to handling the so very few bot requests we actually get? Bureaucrats can handle the requests at their own leisure. If the bot is causing problems, they can block it. There is no need to create an even more exclusive group of people who can handle these requests at this point in time. Maybe when Orain grows in size, but otherwise not. Plus, just for clarification, the BAG would not have the authority to approve global bots, as that duty resides with the stewards. -- Joe G. (Talk) 02:22, 15 June 2014 (BST)
