Stevertigo wrote:
Its not a lack confidence... Its the expectation of responsibility balanced with other things...
When I say that I want to de-mystify the sysop position, this is exactly the sort of idea that I want to counter. Basically, there is an expectation of responsibility, professionalism, good will, for _everyone_, not just sysops.
I ''totally'' agree with the demystification, and politicization... but I dont think that Joe Anon should just show up, do some stuff for a couple of weeks...
Traditionally, the only reason to even have sysops is not as a title of nobility, but because there are/were certain irreversible or hard-to-reverse commands that are very useful. We just want to make reasonably sure someone isn't going to start trashing the database.
I guess Im also curious about SSL and sysopdom, and the such... If someone really wanted to 'fork' the wikipedia they could get access pretty easily couldnt they? -Stevertigo.
SSL access is a different thing from sysop status. SSH access has a much higher standard, and is *really* just a technical thing. I have to know someone pretty well, or have someone vouch for them that I know pretty well, they have to have a reasonably good cause, some computer skills, etc.
Someone wishing to fork would not need SSH access, but if I knew them, and if they had a reason why it would be helpful, a desire to fork would not preclude them. (Although, I don't want people to *fork*, really.)
--Jimbo