[05:27:07] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev, replying to pskyechology> fax
[05:27:31] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> I’ll probably write tomorrow if I get time among other stuff and working all day
[05:28:00] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> I’m iffy on RfF vs RfC buti think smal rfc works better
[05:28:18] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> id rather chip at the precedent of months long rfcs anyhow
[05:29:14] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> and i may toss in some additional language to clarify where AS’s scope exclusion of no RfPs and Meta Crat overlap
[05:30:15] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> or just change language to specify global on that bullet?
[17:58:47] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> I’m inclined to go ahead and small protect SR/RC to logged in users only, given that there’s really no reason for an anon to make requests on that page, and basically any anon edit would be accidentally log out
[17:59:02] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> Any objections @Meta Administrators?
[17:59:12] <MirahezeRelay>	 <notaracham> +1 from me
[17:59:56] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pskyechology, replying to pixldev> weird to ping meta admins for a steward-responsible place but i see the value in their feedback
[18:05:07] <MirahezeRelay>	 <thewwrnerdguy, replying to pixldev> +1 from me, makes sense
[18:05:24] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev, replying to pskyechology> I didn’t actually consider that lol, I think of meta admins generally when it comes to meta maintenance
[18:05:39] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> 1+1 is 2 I think so let’s go
[18:07:00] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> Done
[18:22:10] <MirahezeRelay>	 <zppix, replying to pixldev> +1.5
[18:34:19] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> @pixldev you wanted an RfC on having assistant stewards also being meta bureaucrats? Anything else?
[18:51:19] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev, replying to wikitideharej> Main thing I can think of, there’s also some stuff that would have to be cleaned up to clarify if the current scope takes precedence (ergo, AS may operate as crat, but not close RfPs) or if Meta is an explicit exception
[18:51:46] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> IMO being able to close WR/MA/IA RFP makes sense
[18:52:23] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> The part I’m iffy on is closing meta scoped RfCs
[18:52:36] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> Which I’m good with putting as a sub proposal even
[18:54:37] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> Actually just noticed, Meta Crats couldn’t close RfWCs?
[18:55:53] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev, replying to wikitideharej> Are you wanting to make this a solo mini RFC?
[18:57:24] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> I was contemplating an RfC for miscellaneous tweaks. Barely related, I want to rewrite the removal section of the wiki reviewers page because I hate how it’s written. I also want to separately poll moving it to the main namespace
[19:23:01] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev, replying to wikitideharej> We had some ideas on renovating WR edit requirements (or reforming so WRs must be nominated even)
[19:23:16] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> But I’m cautious of making it too big
[19:23:23] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> I wanna very more to small RFCs
[19:24:15] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> Well, we could scope anything to do with wiki reviewers as one RfC
[22:42:49] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> huh
[22:42:51] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pixldev> https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Darkrai18