A few observations from a non-sysop:
It's clear to me that we don't need to reduce sysops,
but at the same time, there may be some sysops who
should not be sysops. We need sysops who are active,
responsible, and reasonable.
It's important to de-sysop (without prejudice) the
inactive. Otherwise we're deceiving ourselves about
how many sysops we have.
In a sense, don't sysops represent Wikipedia? If so,
shouldn't they have some responsibility to those whom
they represent, to the community as a whole? Having
unlimited terms does not encourage a responsible
attitude.
Term limits could be implemented in such a way that an
active sysop who wants to continue will continue
unless heavily opposed. For instance, an unopposed
sysop could retain office simply by indicating a
desire to do so.
If indeed being a sysop is "no big deal" as it says on
[[wikipedia:Administrators]]
([
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators]),
then being voted out as one should also be "no big
deal", right?
It would be nice if anonymous voting could be used.
Perhaps the Board voting mechanism?
If we are short on good sysops, let's make sure that
it is understood that being a sysop is a service to
the community, not a power trip. For example, don't
call it "self-nomination", but "volunteering." Or,
make it clear that nominations are sought, so that
people will be more likely to nominate others.
Comments?
-Rich Holton [[user:Rholton]]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/