On 12/20/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:53:32 +0000, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but if it was on a voluntary basis, it wouldn't be that much work after the initial rush. Not every trusted user would want/need access
to
templates, for instance.
A lot of them would want it despite not needing it - everyone wants to be trusted. Maybe a specific "template" group, rather than a more general "trusted" group would be good, it would make it easier to convince people that it's "no big deal".
The real problem here is that trusted users should be given the sysop bit and are not. No big deal? Not these days.
Guy (JzG)
Could be a worse deal.
I think I understand why my RFA was controversial and failed, and to some degree the "please don't be too controversial" RFA criterion makes a lot of sense.