[WikiEN-l] Fixed term sysops.

[Ryan Wetherell]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Pellegrini" <mapellegrini at comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 17:08:41 -0400
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fixed term sysops.

> Having fixed terms is an excellent idea. One or two
> year appointments would be ample, and would not be
> overly burdensom. A sysop whose term had expired could
> stand for re-election after (say) 6 months.
> Mark
> 
> No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad idea. With 
> maybe one or two exceptions, our sysops are trustworthy, 
> reliable, and obedient to the rules. Having elections, on the 
> other hand, would be like ringing the dinner bell for everyone 
> troll or vandal with an axe to grind against a particular sysop 
> (or sysops). In addition, the administrative overhead would be 
> fearsome. I'd also like to point out that by your 1 sysop/1000 
> article standard, we're about 40 sysops below strength. 
> 
> Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of people are 
> getting nominated for adminship without being here long enough. 
> I think this criticism is valid. I don't recognize most of the names 
> coming up on the RFA these days, and that worries me. I think
> people need to be a bit more critical of new requests, but I don't 
> think that means that we should be trying to cull down the number 
> of sysops - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
> 
> --Mark 
> 
> 
> 

>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


I happen to agree with the fixed terms.  Pellegrini had some good reasons, and mine is: why now?  If this is a good idea, why wait until there are well over 200 sysops?  Constant elections = hectic + voter fatigue.

Ryan
-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm