cohesion wrote:
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins and will need to desysop them.
I was just saying we should wait and see. I don't really think there is a huge problem anyway. People that discuss this on the mailing list are not representative of every editor. There is a bias to think everyone wants to be an admin, that's simply not true. If you make people admins based on some criteria you will get a lot of people that have the tools to cleanup admin backlogs but lack the desire, as they were happily editing articles on bridges, or Nevada, and will continue to do so.
I think people that become admins should be somewhat self-motivated, they should *want* to be admins. BUT it shouldn't be hard. Just have a new system where people ask to be admins, a bureaucrat looks at their history to make sure they are generally ok and decides, and then in 3 months there is a retrospective discussion. If the discussion has consensus to deadmin, do so. Easy. While we're at it let's rename admin to custodian or curator :)
I think there is alot of truth to what you say here. But if you want to be an admin you will get slapped around at RfA. Remember, we only want people who do not want the job ;).
Bryant