On Sunday 02 March 2008 20:27, Chris Howie wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
I've suggested something similar in the past: For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting SPAs, socks, and maybe a few others. A week after their confirmation process begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins.
From then on out, they must maintain that support. A page is maintained for each administrator. It begins with the original confirmation request, and from that individual users may add or withdraw their support for that administrator as they see fit. Once a week, on the same day as the admin was initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still meet that threshold. If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive weeks, they are de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than just a single week helps give admins a chance to explain why they did what they did, in the event of a particularly controversial action that may nonetheless have been the best thing to do in a particular situation).
Good luck getting anyone to run for adminship if they're going to be subjected to what amounts to a weekly RfA.
An RfA is only a big deal if you find yourself compelled to respond to every point made against you...in other words, it's only a big deal if being an administrator is an actual goal of yours--it's only a big deal if you *want* to be an administrator.
Frankly, those are the people I don't think should be administrators.
If you don't really care much if you're turned down, all you have to do is fill out your nomination statement and leave it alone. These are the people we need: people who don't necessarily *want* the job, but are willing to do it at the request of the community.
Are you familiar with Cincinnatus? Or George Washington, for that matter?