David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
So you want this for theoretical reasons rather than because of an actual problem?
- d.
Both, really. I'd call it "logically and morally right" rather than "theoretical" though, and the question of actual problems with any certain user is strictly my own opinion unless there is either a pertaining RfCU / RfAr or any kind of new, community-consensus- driven process to force specific people to repeat RfA. Which leads me to my initial question: what is the merit of RfA in the first place, if the community is -as you seem to assume- incapable of determining and expressing their trust at all?
Yes, any kind of recall process would certainly attract people with an axe to grind. But I hold the opinion that since admins are officially entrusted with the tools because and only after the community has expressed its trust, the ongoing trust of the community is in fact important.
I.e. that any admin *should* be able to successfully repeat an RfA at any given time. But that's not the case. And some of those who would utterly fail will never be reprimanded by ArbCom (reprimanded meaning de-sysopped).