On 24/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com 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
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins and I don't see that happening either.
going back a little bit on this post Rfa is probably very bad - lets look at it another way - statistics tell us that in any given week there are around 4000 regular registered editors (on en). 10pc of those are probably admin (or if the theory is true 25pc). I personally dont think that 2000 of the regular editors want to get involved. so of the remainder you have fair wether editors who want to get stuck in (and want to be admin now, yesterday), editors who will bide their time with a goal of clocking up and playing the WP says this and guidelines says this. The rest are too frightened to try or do try and then leave the project once Rfa is snowed.
How to make it good? I will never say that all admins are good but why not a revolving commitee of 20 admins at random who decide based on applicatants edits, communication, GF blocks etc - make it a real vote. open - no need for candidates to screw themselves by answering every post.
mike