On 10/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Oh, and this is another problem: three-year terms are far too long. No one can reasonably be expected to last three whole years at the really pointy end of Wikipedia. Life doesn't work that way: people get bored, get a new job, new life, new woman, new kids, whatever. Things change. I seem to recall a rule of thumb on Meatball, which stated that the average maximum length of participation in online communities was 3 years. We expect our arbitrators do have been around for well over a year before we elect them. Using Meatball's rule, we're only going to get another year and a half out of them, at best. Not good.
I suspect it's about six to eighteen months, much like the typical MMORPG. I keep seeing good people who disappear after that long. If we ever get another good full-history dump of en:wp, we should be able to analyse this nicely if we work out the precise right question.
Once someone *has* lasted a year or two, they have a much better handle on their own attention span.
I first ran for ArbCom mid-2004, after six months here (and came third with two positions open). I ran again end of 2004 and got in, and chose a 1 year term as I have a fair grasp of my own attention span ...
There is a selection effect... "typical" timespan of participation doesn't measure those who feel a long term committment and stay for much longer. Plenty of 5 and 10 and more year contributors in the history of the Internet, though I can't recall a lot of projects or contributors that lasted 15 plus years without mutating beyond recognition.
Hopefully, the people running for arbcom are those who are already known (individually and by the collective consensus) to be likely long term contributors.
With that said, the burnout factors are real. If it's overworking people, they will eventually withdraw mentally and find something else to do, even if they're still engaged in the project in general.