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/