> If there's ever a need for a larger de-adminning process than that > of ArbCom we can discuss it then. As is, there isn't any clear > need in any respect.

We're discussing because there will be a need if we relax adminship requirements. We know there isn't a need now.

> I'm not entirely convinced there will be significantly more of a need > if RFA is told to quit it with the demands for shrubberies - such a > need that we would need rules in place first, rather than defining > them as the need shows up. > The need hasn't been shown as yet.

There's a big difference between getting rid of some of the more excessive requirements at RfA and handing out the mop to anyone that's been around long enough without getting blocked. The first shouldn't require any major changes in desysoping process. The latter definitely would.

On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: Maybe, but better to wait and see I think. No reason to make new policy that *might* be needed. Let's make it *if* it's needed.

On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins

On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was just saying we should wait and see. I don't really think there is a huge problem anyway. People that discuss this on the mailing list are not representative of every editor. There is a bias to think everyone wants to be an admin, that's simply not true. If you make people admins based on some criteria you will get a lot of people that have the tools to cleanup admin backlogs but lack the desire, as they were happily editing articles on bridges, or Nevada, and will continue to do so. I think people that become admins should be somewhat self-motivated, they should *want* to be admins. BUT it shouldn't be hard. Just have a new system where people ask to be admins, a bureaucrat looks at their history to make sure they are generally ok and decides, and then in 3 months there is a retrospective discussion. If the discussion has consensus to deadmin, do so. Easy. While we're at it let's rename admin to custodian or curator :) Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion